Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Railwaymen (Pay and Productivity Talks)

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement about progress in the pay and productivity talks with the railwaymen arising from the Prime Minister's meeting with them in mid-March.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): Following several joint meetings chaired by myself or one of my officials and subsequent direct informal discussions between the British Railways Board and the unions, a further joint meeting chaired by one of my officials is to be held tomorrow.

Mr. Marten: Could the Minister say what progress has been made in these talks about increasing productivity, in particular about the question of liner trains?

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman will know that great improvements have been made in the operation of liner trains, but the talks which have so far taken place, as he knows, are of great complexity, with the whole of the negotiating machinery and consultative machinery being examined and analysed, and particularly the grading structure in its relationship to greater efficiency.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider introducing, as one of the subjects for decision at the current railways pay and productivity talks being held under the auspices of his Department, the adoption of techniques of planning freight train workings by computer which have been developed at Hull.

Mr. Gunter: The matters being discussed in the talks under my Ministry's chairmanship include a review of railway pay and grade structure designed to facilitate the introduction of new methods, such as that still being developed at Hull.

Mr. Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the basis of the research done at Hull, the new technique of operational planning, which takes four hours compared with three weeks if done manually, can result in as much as a 50 per cent. saving of the work involved?

Mr. Gunter: As I have already said, an analysis of what is required there is now going on. The British Railways Board has told me that it is still under technical development, and it will form part of the negotiations going on.

Mr. Webster: Would it not be a good idea, if we have new techniques, to let them be exploited to the full by having free access to liner train depôts?

Mr. Gunter: The liner trains are being cared for. I do not know why there is this sudden outburst of interest.

Prices and Incomes Act (Part IV)

Mr. Hordern: asked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to indemnify those employers who, while carrying out Government policy by withholding wage increases, are sued by their employees for breach of contract, before Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act is introduced.

Mr. Gunter: Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act has now been brought into force.

Mr. Hordern: But does not the Minister realise that Part IV of the Act is due to expire in a year's time? Does not the Minister realise that there is nothing more disgraceful than to allow a company to be brought before the court when its only crime has been to follow out Government policy? How do the Government expect to get co-operation from employers when Part IV lapses?

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the pleasant features of these our present difficulties has been the co-operation which has been given both by employers and trade unions. The hon. Member will know that discussions which are now taking place and which have been taking place and which will continue to take place are about the future.

Incapacitated Workers (Workshops)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour how many homes and workshops under Government control and supervision are now available for the care and training of incapacitated men and women including ex-Service men and women; and what are his plans for enlarging and increasing the facilities available to such men and women.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): If my hon. and learned Friend will let me know what particular aspects he is interested in, I should be glad to let him have information about it.

Mr. Hughes: I was hoping that my hon. Friend would understand that my particular interest is in the homes in Aberdeen, and those incapacitated persons who are unable to walk. What provision is made for their transport and their exercise?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that responsibility for such homes is divided among many authorities. If he will be kind enough to put down a further Question I shall be glad to attempt to answer it.

Industrial Accidents

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet received a report on the pilot survey conducted by Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate in 1965 to seek to discover the reasons for the continuing increase in the number of reported industrial accidents; whether the report reached firm conclusions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gunter: Following consideration of a paper based on the reports submitted by the two inspectors concerned in the Industrial Safety Sub-Committee of my National Joint Advisory Council, the subject is being further examined in my Department. The survey was a pilot study, intended to indicate lines for further inquiry; it was not expected to reach firm conclusions.

Mr. Holland: Cannot the Minister give us some idea when he will set up an inquiry which will be able to reach firm conclusions, and will he not agree that when information becomes available which may be relevant to industrial accidents the maximum possible publicity should be given to it to aid industry to reverse this rising trend?

Mr. Gunter: I hope that the revised draft will be put to the first meeting of the Safety Advisory Industrial Council which I am setting up in consultation with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. I hope that the revised draft will receive consideration then.

Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a pilot survey of this kind was carried out in my constituency of Halifax as long ago as 1957, with some appalling results? Surely it


is time the Government took responsibility in this matter and ceased to carry out surveys?

Mr. Gunter: I am not so sure that the year my hon. Friend refers to is the year we are talking about—of this pilot scheme—but I am very impressed by the urgency of this matter. I hope that the talks, which are now almost continuous at the Ministry between both sides of industry, will lead to some results ere long.

Factory Doctor Service

Mr. Holland: asked the Minister of Labour what steps have so far been taken to implement the proposals contained in the Report on the Appointed Factory Doctor Service by a Sub-Committee of the Industrial Health Advisory Committee published in April, 1966.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Interested bodies were invited to comment on the Report. The majority of replies have now been received. The views expressed will be taken into account in considering the recommendations.

Mr. Holland: Will not the hon. Lady agree that there were some very important proposals arising from this Sub Committee and that they should be implemented as quickly as possible? Can she give us some idea how soon they will be?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member will appreciate that there are a number of bodies which are anxious to have their views considered carefully. We are awaiting those views still, and discussions will take place as soon as they all come in.

Motor Industry

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour what is the level of unemployment which it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to create in the motor industry.

Mr. Gunter: It is not the Government's policy to create unemployment in the motor industry.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Whether that unemployment is created deliberately or inadvertently, can the right hon. Gentleman say what useful purpose is served

from the point of view of our balance of payments by driving men out of this highly important export industry and forcing his own officers to try to place them in such services as ladies' hair-dressing?

Mr. Gunter: The right hon. Gentleman is one of those who have advanced the doctrine that some heat should be taken out of the economy. The home consumption of motor cars was a factor in that overheating. It is impossible to deny that the deflationary measures have contributed to reducing the labour requirements of that industry, and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a considerable amount of short-time working. Of course there is redundancy and short-time working, but we hope that, in the end, there will be a better-equipped industry.

Mr. Frederic Harris: With B.MC. workers lobbying Members here today, would it not be more fair for a Government Minister to meet them this afternoon, to tell them the whole truth and let them know how things stand for the future?

Mr. Gunter: Not only was publicity given to the fact that they were here—I was made aware of that at 10.30 this morning—but the Prime Minister and I, with other Ministers, will be meeting them some time this afternoon.

Pay Increases (Deferment)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour what guidance he is giving to employers in the light of the decision of the Edmonton County Court judge in the case of Allen versus Thorn Electrical Industries Limited.

Mr. Gunter: I am advising employers that they should continue to seek the agreement of their employees to the deferment of pay increases. Now that Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act is in force, Section 30 provides them with a legal defence for disregarding pay increases in contracts made before 6th October, 1966, after they have given not less than one week's written notice of their intention to pay not less than the rate paid immediately before Part IV came into force.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it not follow from that that, where there are such


agreements, the union and its members are entitled to the increases due under the agreements up to at any rate 6th October or perhaps for some days thereafter? Will the right hon. Gentleman give guidance to employers whether, in those circumstances, an employer is to fight a hopeless action in the courts or pay up?

Mr. Gunter: The right hon. Gentleman knows the position as well as I do, and perhaps better. In our view, Section 30 of the Act protects any employer who withholds a pay increase due after 6th October. It also provides the defence in respect of any period after that date for an employer who withholds an increase before 6th October but not paid by that date. In any particular case, the application of Section 30 must depend on the facts of the case. In the last resort, it is a matter for the courts. I would re-emphasise that I hope the employer will continue to seek agreement to the deferment of the pay increase.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: If the Opposition favour the Government's telling employers what to do should proceedings be taken against them, is not that inconsistent with their criticism that the Government encroach unduly on the liberties of the subject?

Mr. Gunter: I should think that that is a fair deduction.

Unemployed Persons (Sheffield)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Labour what were the numbers of unemployed persons in Sheffield during July, August and September, 1966, the percentage of the insured workers in Sheffield which these numbers represent, and the comparable numbers for July, August and September, 1965.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Hooley: Would my hon. Friend say what special steps are being taken by her Department for the retraining and redeployment of men in Sheffield who have been made redundant by the present measures?

Mrs. Williams: The figures show that unemployment in Sheffield is still far be low the national average. There are

good reasons to believe that prospects are good for almost all types of workers in the area.

Following is the information:


TOTAL NUMBERS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AND PERCENTAGE RATES OF UNEMPLOYMENT AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICES AT SHEFFIELD, INCLUDING ATTERCLIFFE AND WOODHOUSE




Numbers Unemployed
Percentage rate


12th September, 1966
…
2,597
1·0


8th August, 1966
…
2,084
0·8


11th July, 1966
…
2,138
0·8


13th September, 1965
…
1,904
0·7


9th August, 1965
…
2,027
0·7


12th July, 1965
…
1,748
0·6

Unemployed Persons (Bathgate)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Labour how many were registered as unemployed in the Bathgate area at the last available date; and how many were registered as unemployed at equivalent dates in October, 1962, October, 1963. October, 1964, and October, 1965.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On 10th October, 1966, there were 2,267 persons registered as unemployed at the Bathgate Employment Exchange. The corresponding figures for October in 1965, 1964, 1963 and 1962 were 596, 704, 982 and 1,031 respectively.

British Motor Corporation, Bathgate (Redundancies)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Labour how many of those declared redundant at the British Motor Corporation, Bathgate, registered at Ministry of Labour employment exchanges; and how many of these have been placed in jobs.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: 675 have registered and 83 have been placed. In addition, 91 are known to have found work.

Mr. Dalyell: Do not those figures warrant an early decision in off-the-job adult retraining, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour referred in last week's debate?

Mrs. Williams: I would remind my hon. Friend that in that debate the Minister referred to a later announcement which he would be making on this matter.

Vacancies (Oxford Area)

Mr. Luard: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the vacancies known to his Department in the Oxford area at the present time are in manufacturing and service industries, respectively.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On 5th October, there were 1,420 vacancies in manufacturing industries—including 577 for men, 323 for women, 215 for boys and 305 for girls. There were 2,721 vacancies in service industries—including 738 for men, 1,140 for women, 328 for boys and 515 for girls.

Mr. Luard: In view of the fact that about 2,000 people will be made redundant in one of our most important exporting manufacturing industries, do not those figures show that the shake-out that was intended to take place is taking place in the opposite direction, out of manufacturing industries into service industries?

Mrs. Williams: It is true that, in the Oxford area in particular, service industries have more vacancies to offer than manufacturing. This is not the case in most other areas in which car workers are being made redundant.

Mr. Marten: Can the hon. Lady say how many people there are out of work today in the Oxford area?

Mrs. Williams: I am sorry. I cannot say at the moment. I will give the hon. Gentleman the figures later.

British Motor Corporation, Oxford (Redundancies)

Mr. Luard: asked the Minister of Labour how many of those British Motor Corporation workers recently made redundant in Oxford were found employment by his Department in the manufacturing and service industries, respectively.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The redundancies are not due to take effect until Friday, 4th November. However, we have so far found employment for 33 of those workers in manufacturing industries, 62 in service industries, and 35 in others.

Mr. Luard: Do not those figures again confirm that most of those who have been made redundant are finding employment in service industries? As the Minister recognised in debate last week that there

is a special problem in Oxford owing to the lack of alternative employment, may I ask whether my hon. Friend can give an assurance that prompt, decisive and co-ordinated action will be taken by the Ministries responsible to ensure that adequate employment is found in Oxford to take on these workers?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, Sir. We have approached no fewer than 2,500 firms in the Oxford area by personal letter. At the moment, in the immediate Oxford area—that is to say, within possible travelling distance—there are 6,850 vacancies for men.

Professional Sport (Incomes Standstill)

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of Labour whether the standstill on incomes applies to professional sport.

Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Minister satisfied that sporting employers are accepting and following his policy? What investigation of the situation is the right hon. Gentleman making as to whether such employers are accepting and following his policy?

Mr. Gunter: We have had no reason so far to follow it up, but if the hon. Gentleman has any specific case in mind, I will investigate it.

Mr. Bellenger: Does my right hon. Friend's Answer refer to the huge capital sums that are paid over, from which the employee benefits in football sports, for example, or does it refer only to the fees, or whatever they are called, which he gets for playing in matches?

Mr. Gunter: As I understand the intricacies of soccer, the transfer fees are not part of the player's income. I would suggest that that is a question which should be directed to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Education and Science, who is in charge of it.

Unemployment

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Labour if he will now state an up-to-date and revised estimate of the numbers unemployed, after redeployment during this winter.

Mr. Gunter: As I made clear in the debate on 24th October I am not prepared to forecast future levels of unemployment.

Mr. Allaun: Is not a total of 470,000 after redeployment far too high, particularly when compared with, say, West Germany where there are only 130,000 unemployed? Secondly, will the Minister confirm the hint given by the Prime Minister last week when pressed about relaxing the deflationary measures before it is too late?

Mr. Gunter: I do not know what exactly I am asked to confirm, but I think that the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that the position is being watched and, when the time comes in his opinion and in the opinion of the Government, the necessary steps will be taken.

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the dates, during the period from 1951 to 1964, when the unemployment figures exceeded a total of 350,000.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Total numbers registered as unemployed exceeded 350,000 on 88 of the 168 monthly counts during the period. I will with permission circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wainwright: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is rather a shocking record of the Tory Government? Will she state when the figures under the Tory Administration exceeded 473,000? Does not she agree that under the Labour Government schemes for retraining men in new skills have far exceeded anything that the Tories ever did?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, but we would not deny that both retraining facilities and also economic assistance in development areas must be taken further still.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Minister nevertheless agree that it is likely that this figure of 350,000 will be doubled before we get through this winter? Does she not further agree that when her party was elected to power it was on the basis that it would get rid of "stop-go" and not give us a worse "stop" than before?

Mrs. Williams: I am not as good at reading crystal balls as is the hon. Member.

Following is the information:

Months during which the count of total numbers registered as unemployed in Great Britain exceeded 350,000

1952 All months.
1953 January, February, March and April.
1954 January and February.
1957 January, February and March.
1958 All months.
1959 All months.
1960 January, February, March, April, November and December.
1961 January, February, March, October, November and December.
1962 All months.
1963 All months.
1964 January, February, March, April, May, August and November.

Daily Mirror Employees (Unofficial Strike)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour what were the weekly gross wages of the Daily Mirror employees whose unofficial strike lost the newspaper 3,000,000 circulation; what hours they worked; what fringe benefits they enjoyed; what steps he takes to make labour available for the newspaper industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gunter: The detailed information asked for is not available, but average weekly earnings for adult male workers in the printing industry were £28 6s. 1d. in April, 1966, and average weekly hours were 44·8.
The employment services of my Ministry are available, but the majority of engagements in this industry are made through the trade unions.
I am happy to note that the industry has resolved this dispute through its own machinery.

Sir C. Osborne: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are a lot of low-paid workers who would be jolly glad to get £28 a week in this better-paid and protected industry? Why does he not draft some of the lower-paid workers into these highly privileged jobs?

Mr. Gunter: We have had enough trouble about drafting already. I am


sure that there are millions of lower-paid workers who would very much welcome £28 a week.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the wages of any of the ten top newspaper directors exceeds £28 a week, and if so, by how much?

Mr. Gunter: I could not answer the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, but I should not think that there are any who get less than £28.

Export Industries (Employment)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour in what industries, principally, are the 5,000,000 jobs that depend upon exports; how he proposes to guarantee full employment to these workers in instances where difficulties are experienced in export markets; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gunter: The contribution to exports is widely spread but with a particular contribution from the manufacturing industries. I am not able to guarantee employment to any worker.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the right hon. Gentleman go into the Lobby now and tell that to the 50 representatives of the motor car workers, especially as it is estimated that there are 5 million jobs depending upon exports, and the Government cannot guarantee that the foreigner will buy the products of those workers?

Mr. Gunter: I do not understand the implication of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I have repeatedly said to the car workers—and in the House—that no one can guarantee full employment in this country until it is earned, and they have heard me say it.

Scotland (Unemployment and Redeployment)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the numbers of persons who will be unemployed in Scotland by the end of the year; and if he is satisfied that his Department has adequate staff to cope with the speedy and effective redeployment of this number.

Mr. Gunter: I am not prepared to make estimates of this sort. I am satisfied

that sufficient staff will be available to enable my Department to deal with any additional work in Scotland.

Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have more than three unemployed people for every vacant job in Scotland, and that there is no need for more heat to be taken out of the economy? Can he say whether the Government have a figure of employment at which a recovery plan will be introduced? If so, what is the figure, and what is the plan?

Mr. Gunter: I have no figure in mind.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the figure of 136,000 which was reached in February, 1963, will not be reached under this Government?

Mr. Gunter: I could not guarantee anything, but I certainly hope not.

Earl of Dalkeith: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if he adds even the present unemployment figures in Scotland to the record-breaking number of people who have emigrated from Scotland in these last two years the Government stand condemned in the eyes of all people in Scotland who think about it?

Mr. Gunter: I am not sure of the exact number who have emigrated, but, as an émigré myself, I can say that there are certain advantages in emigrating.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour what special steps his Department is taking to assist in the redeployment of persons made redundant in Scotland.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: At the earliest moment teams of employment officers are going into the factories affected by major redundancies to give assistance and advice about jobs. A special drive has been made to bring in vacancies from all employers within reach of the areas affected.

Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that there is a danger of a sudden deterioration in the situation? The staff are already overworked in Scotland. What plans are there if such an emergency should arise?

Mrs. Williams: If a sudden emergency arises, the Minister's rather meagre staff from other areas move in and give them


special training in the work that they have to do.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that everybody involved in this situation, whatever else they may disagree about, praises the work done by the Ministry of Labour officials?

Mrs. Williams: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's tribute. We, too, very much admire the work which is being done under pressure by Ministry of Labour staff.

Mr. Monro: Does not the rising figure of unemployment in Scotland make nonsense of the Secretary of State's statement that Scotland would be sheltered from the freeze?

Mrs. Williams: During the debate on Monday I pointed out that Scotland had to a considerable extent not suffered as much as some other regions on this occasion, nor as much as on previous occasions.

Women Employees (North Devon)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women have left service employment in North Devon to enter the manufacturing industries either in North Devon or further afield.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. Mills: May I tell the hon. Lady that there is virtually none? Would not she agree that this makes nonsense of the Selective Employment Tax and its effects in these regional areas? Will she do something immediately to rectify this situation, possibly by some form of differential?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will realise that North Devon has for a long time had little manufacturing industry, in spite of efforts made by the previous Government also. It is, however, the case that North Devon is now part of a development area, and as such is receiving additional privileges compared with areas which are not development areas.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the hon. Lady aware that in the Ilfracombe area, which depends on tourism, and where the S.E.T. has had its hardest effect, unemployment

is now 10·2 per cent. of the employed population? Is the hon. Lady aware that this is 2·6 per cent. higher than last year? Is she further aware that the one chance of getting 400 men employed in an advance factory is being blocked by the Ministry of Transport because of an access problem? Will the hon. Lady look into that?

Mrs. Williams: I am aware that an advance factory is expected to go into production shortly, but that there are obstacles. We shall do what we can to look into it.

Dr. David Owen: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the kind of information sought in the Question will be acquired so that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to make up his mind about whether to apply the S.E.T. on a regional basis he will have some proper evidence on which to work?

Mrs. Williams: The figures to show changes as between one industry and another are available on the mid-year counts of the National Insurance cards, but they are not available yet.

Retraining Facilities (North Devon)

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Labour what retraining facilities are available in North Devon to deal with the increasing number of unemployed.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: There are no Government Training Centres in North Devon. Unemployed people who both want and are suitable for the accelerated training for skill undertaken at Government Training Centres may be able to train at the newly opened Centre at Plymouth or at the Bristol Government Training Centre.

Mr. Mills: May I ask the hon. Lady whether she is sure that Plymouth is adequately covered? Bearing in mind the long distance which people have to travel, would not she agree that what is needed is a sub-centre in North Devon to deal with this problem?

Mrs. Williams: We have to place Government training centres as far as possible near the centres of population and near industry. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Plymouth has only just started. I think that we had better


wait to see how far it can meet the needs of the area.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We are grateful that the Government have reopened a training centre which was closed by the previous Tory Government. Already all the places in Plymouth are fully occupied. Will my hon. Friend please consider opening another retraining centre, possibly in Exeter?

Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. They will certainly be taken into consideration.

Shop Stewards (Training)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour what proposals he has for the training of shop stewards to equip them for their industrial relations work.

Mr. Park: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to promote industrial relations and training courses for shop stewards.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The primary responsibility for the training of shop stewards is, of course, a matter for the trade unions concerned, but it is part of the work of our industrial relations officers to assist, where necessary, the promotion of suitable training for shop stewards.
My right hon. Friend is at present in touch with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. about the part which industrial training boards might play in this matter.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the fact that as the trade unions, with the notable exception of the E.T.U., have done very little indeed about this, does not the Minister agree that the Government would be justified in trying to stimulate this, either directly or through industrial training boards? There is a very great need for more training as shop stewards.

Mrs. Williams: There is no question about the advantages to be gained from shop stewards' training. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the Engineering Industry Training Board has already announced that shop steward training may be included in the grants scheme and the Construction Industry Training Board has made a grant in respect of a training course for shop stewards, so we are moving forward.

Mr. Park: Is my hon. Friend aware that many such courses, sponsored by the Workers Educational Association and university extra-mural departments, in collaboration with employers and trade unions, have been taking place for some time but that their expansion to meet the need is held up by a shortage of funds? Will she consult the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the way in which this difficulty can be overcome?

Mrs. Williams: Some excellent work has been done, not least by the W.E.A. and the extra-mural departments. My Ministry is concerned to try to increase the number of courses available under these schemes.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: Will the Minister take note of the fact that courses of this kind are being mounted in more and more of our technical colleges in industrial centres? Will she urge her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to encourage this development?

Mrs. Williams: My Department will be quite prepared to get into touch with my right hon. Friend in order to make sure that he is aware of this development and does everything possible to support it.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is also a need to stimulate further management training in this field in order to arrive at a new criterion of "What you know", and not the other one of "Whom you need to know", or "Who your dad was"?

Mrs. Williams: My right hon. Friend is at least equally aware of that need.

Redeployment

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Labour what he expects will be the total number of men redeployed during the winter of 1966–67.

Mr. Gunter: I am unable to estimate the number of men who will change jobs in any given period.

Mr. Ridley: Did the Minister without Portfolio show the right hon. Gentleman a copy of his Press hand-out, in which he appears to advocate the direction of labour? Can he deny that this is any part of Government policy?

Mr. Gunter: What this has to do with the Question before us I have no idea. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am coming to the answer. The Minister without Portfolio immediately sent out a correction. All I say is that there is no thought at all in the mind of the Government on the question of the direction of labour. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that when he asks a Question of this character at least he should know that between 8 million and 9 million people change their jobs every year, so how I can be asked to assesss how many will do so by next winter I do not know.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very senior official who has advised Cabinet Ministers said, some months ago, that either we should have S.E.T. or direction of labour? He said that to me personally. Will the right hon. Gentleman now deny that it is not in the Government's mind to consider this?

Mr. Gunter: I have no observation at all to make on what I should imagine was a private conversation.

Mr. Strauss: On a point of order. Is it right for an hon. Member of this House to quote a senior official, presumably a civil servant, giving the impression that he conveyed certain information or ideas, particularly without mentioning his name?

Mr. Speaker: Whether it is right or not is for the House to judge. It is not a point of order.

Industry (Manual Workers)

Mr. Winnick: asked the Minister of Labour what study he has made of the report published by the Industrial Society, a copy of which has been sent to him, regarding the position of manual workers in industry; and what action he will take.

Mr. Gunter: I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the booklet called "Status and Benefits in Industry". I think that the report is a useful contribution to study of this important subject. It has been brought to the attention of my officers who advise industry on such matters.

Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Report confirms that manual workers are placed at a great disadvantage in industry? Does not he consider it wrong that a skilled manual worker with 30 or 40 years' experience should still be considered inferior in terms of conditions, sickness pay, clocking in and out, and other matters?

Mr. Gunter: I have repeatedly said so.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: The Minister is no doubt aware that I was closely associated with those who presented this document. Does not he agree that it is something that industry and the trade unions would do better to sort out for themselves, and that it is not for the Government to do so?

Mr. Gunter: I am not unaware of the complications that exist between employers and trade unions in this matter.

Selective Employment Tax

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the effect of the Selective Employment Tax on redundancy in the Highlands and the North-East of Scotland; and what alternative work is being provided for those affected.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It is too early to assess the effect of the tax on employment in the Highlands and North-East of Scotland.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Minister aware that the service industries which have to pay this absurd tax are the industries which have provided a large proportion of all the employment in the area?

Mrs. Williams: Yes, we are well aware of that. But I am informed that there have been no large-scale dismissals which can be directly attributed to the imposition of the tax.

Mr. Buchan: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the working of this tax has been so unselective that it is time that we had a look at the situation, so that we might ensure that the Chancellor fully reviews it in April, from the point of view of regional or industrial differentiation?

Mrs. Williams: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that the tax will be reviewed after it has been in operation for a year—and that review will take place.

Employment Exchanges

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour what plans he has for improving the service given by employment exchanges for dealing with the increased numbers of unemployed.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: We are sending special teams of employment officers into factories to deal with large-scale redundancies, but in general we are steadily improving the employment services everywhere in respect of staff, training, and local organisation.

Mr. Lewis: Is not the hon. Lady aware that at the present time many employment exchanges do not have recorded with them the number of vacancies for skilled men that exist in other parts of the country? Will my hon. Friend seek to put this right? It is important that these exchanges should be employment exchanges and not unemployment exchanges.

Mrs. Williams: I agree with the hon. Member about that. There are regular arrangements for the interchange of information about vacancies in different parts of the country. We are looking into ways, through conference telephone calls and also through the use of other machinery, to improve and speed up this system further.

Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that, partly due to the increasing Americanisation and control of British industry a growing number of senior executives are being made unemployed? Will she consider whether or not the Ministry's Professional and Executive Register can be expanded to cope with the need to redeploy these people through a wide range of industry?

Mrs. Williams: We are working on the expansion and improvement of the Professional and Executive Register, but I agree that we should take the question further still.

I.L.O. Convention, Geneva

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Labour who represented this country at the International Labour Convention

48th Session in Geneva; whether they took part in proceedings relating to Convention 122, concerning employment policy; and whether Great Britain is a signatory to this Convention.

Mr. Gunter: The United Kingdom delegation consisted of two senior officers from my Department and two other delegates representing respectively employer's and workers' organisations. They were assisted by 28 advisers from Government Departments and from employers' and workers' organisations. The answer to the second and third parts of the Question is "Yes".

Mr. Osborn: Has the Minister read the report of the debate that took place on 12th August concerning the closed shop policy in local authorities and in industry? To what extent does he consider that the operation of a closed shop policy in industry and local authorities is compatible with this Convention?

Mr. Gunter: The whole question of the closed shop—which is a very complicated one, and differs in terms from the situation in other countries—is now before the Royal Commission, and I hope that it will give us guidance on it.

Training Centres (Allowances)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Minister of Labour what proposals he has for revising the scales of his Department's allowances at Government training centres.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: None. The scales of allowances were revised as recently as October last year. In addition, since 6th October this year an earnings-related supplement has been paid in appropriate cases. The amount of any supplement payable depends on the level of the trainee's earnings during the last tax year. Supplements, which are calculated on the same scale as those to short-term National Insurance benefit, are payable for the duration of a course.

Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding these improvements, the average amount paid to workers in training centres is roughly half the average earnings in manufacturing industry? This inevitably causes hardship to workers in training centres. Would she look further into the matter in the light of the present rather difficult circumstances?

Mrs. Williams: While appreciating my hon. Friend's concern, I would point out that a man is better off on training allowances than unemployment and sickness benefit unless he has more than five children.

Redundancy Payments

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Labour (1) what is the total amount of money given in redundancy payments to date; and what part of this total relates to payments made to workers in the construction industry; and

(2) what is the total collected from the construction industry employers in contributions to the redundancy payments fund and the total number of operatives for whom the employers are making a contribution as laid down in the Redundancy Payments Act.

Mr. Gunter: Between 6th December, 1965, when the Redundancy Payments Act came into operation, and 30th September, 1966, £17,330,000 was paid out in redundancy payments under the Act. It is estimated that about £1,160,000 of this or 6·7 per cent., of which about £900,000 was borne by the Redundancy Fund, related to payments made to workers in the construction industry. It is also estimated that during the same period contributions from employers in the construction industry to the Redundancy Fund amounted to about £1,250,000.

Mr. Hilton: The essential part of Question No. 37 was in relation to the number of operatives that this amount covered in payments from employers. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that this information, showing how many workers are officially employed in the industry and covered by the payment, is essential to the unions pressing for information about the growth of labour-only sub-contracting in the industry.

Mr. Gunter: As my hon. Friend knows, the whole question to which he refers is under discussion between the unions and myself and the employers. I would hope to report progress to him before very long.

Part-time Employment

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now include

in his quarterly figures of those in part-time employment, male as well as female workers, in manufacturing, and widen the survey to include both sexes partly employed in all industries and professions.

Mr. Gunter: No, Sir. The number of part-time male workers in manufacturing industries is not significant. Information about part-time employment in industries and professions as a whole is available from the Censuses of Population. Annual estimates are also obtainable from the Family Expenditure Survey, and are to be made more comprehensive in future. I am satisfied that the cost of extending the quarterly survey as suggested would not be justified.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will estimate how many of the 2,066,000 persons last recorded as being in part-time employment have now ceased to be employed.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: It is not possible to make such an estimate. A more recent figure for part-time employment will become available next year from the 1966 Census of Population.

Mr. Fraser: Would not the hon. Lady agree that this is a figure which comes out only once every five years in the Census and that we should do something to make it more relative and more accurate over a shorter period? Surely something can be done to this effect.

Mrs. Williams: We have one other guide. The right hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the number of registered unemployed people seeking part-time work this month was practically identical with the number in October, 1965.

Mr. Whitaker: Could my hon. Friend provide figures showing how many directors are part-time employed or unemployed?

Mrs. Williams: I cannot give a precise figure, but I think that it would be interesting.

Mr. Braine: Bearing in mind the fact that unemployment among the registered disabled was higher than the national average before the Government's measures, which have brought about a considerable increase in unemployment,


can she say how many unemployed part-time workers are disabled? If she does not know, can she find out?

Mrs. Williams: We could give a figure if the hon. Gentleman would put down another Question.

Employees, Merseyside (Training and Retraining)

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to increase the training or retraining of workers on Merseyside, in view of the increase in unemployment in that area.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Liverpool already has one of the largest Government Training Centres in the country. However, as my right hon. Friend told the House on 24th October, we are urgently examining what further expansion of Centres in the short term is possible. Most training needed by unemployed workers is at semi-skilled level and is best given in industry itself. We are examining with the industrial training boards ways in which they might help with the immediate re-training problem.

Mr. Heffer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that this service be expanded in view of the fact that there was a rise in unemployment of approximately 3,000 in the last month and the number of workers trained last year was just over 500? Would she look at the matter again and endeavour to speed up activities in this direction?

Mrs. Williams: The possibility of a second Government training centre on Merseyside is under consideration at present.

Unemployment (Dorset)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Labour what rise in unemployment there has been in Dorset, and in Bridport in particular; and what is the number of unfilled vacancies.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Between 11th October, 1965, and 10th October, 1966, total numbers registered as unemployed increased in Dorset from 1,550 to 2,041 and at Bridport from 191 to 257.
On 5th October, 1966, 1,333 notified vacancies remained unfilled at employment exchanges and youth employment

offices in Dorset, of which 36 were at Bridport.

Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that this is quite an alarming figure for Dorset? Does she expect it to get any worse in the near future?

Mrs. Williams: The increase in the immediate area has been 645 since the introduction of the Selective Employment Tax. I repeat what I said in answer to an earlier Question—we are keeping a very close watch on the effect of the Selective Employment Tax in such areas.

Strikes

Mr. Moonman: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is his practice to institute inquires into the causes of strikes, unofficial or otherwise; and how many such investigations took place in 1965 and 1966, up to 30th September.

Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir, where I consider that such action would be appropriate. Between 1st January, 1965, and 30th September, 1966, I have appointed five Courts of Inquiry and four other formal inquiries into disputes which involved strikes. Five of these strikes were unofficial.

Mr. Moonman: Would the Minister indicate whether he would be prepared to consider an inquiry into each industrial dispute so that we might examine the common problem or common factor which might emerge? Would he consider what preventive work is being done by his Ministry, possibly to avoid some of the rather prejudiced statements made by certain hon. Members, such as the hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and Louth (Sir C. Osborne), during this discussion?

Mr. Gunter: The first question, whether we should have an inquiry into every unofficial strike, has been discussed over the years, and it is almost an impossible task at this time. In addition there is always the danger of cutting across the established negotiating machine of the union. But I have drawn attention to this problem in the evidence which the Ministry of Labour has submitted to the Royal Commission about the fact finding which lies behind strikes. I hope that we shall get some guidance. But it is a very complicated problem because so many unofficial strikes come out of the


blue and are over in half a shift or one shift, and the best thing is to get back to the job.

Mr. John Page: Is the Ministry of Labour taking any action at all on the question of unofficial strikes or what new machinery can be introduced to solve them quickly, or is the right hon. Gentleman merely waiting for the result of the Royal Commission for all these things?

Mr. Gunter: The hon. Member knows that one of the most fruitful experiments in this matter was that introduced in the motor car industry where Mr. Jack Scamp has done a remarkable job in immediately investigating unofficial strikes. We are exploring with other industries how we may come to terms with this problem. I repeat to the House that our biggest problem concerns what prestige we sometimes give to the unofficial strikers when they themselves wrongly reject the machinery which is already there.

London Docks (Demarcation Disputes)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will approach the existing dock labour organisations in the London docks with a view to their amalgamation in order to avoid demarcation disputes which have caused unemployment to dock employees.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider appointing an inquiry into the demarcation dispute between the two unions concerned in the Millwall Dock dispute.

Mr. Gunter: I have appointed a Court of Inquiry into the immediate difficulties, and normal working has been resumed.
Efforts to improve relations between the two organisations concerned have been made over a long period and are being continued, but it would not be appropriate or help matters for me to propose amalgamation.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend must be aware that the existence of these two important dock labour unions, both in the London Docks, in Merseyside and elsewhere, has been a source of much trouble over a period of years. What is

the purpose of having a Court of Inquiry after the dispute begins when there is a possibility of preventing the dispute from taking place? In spite of the difficulties that are entailed, will he make a further effort to bring these two important unions together with a view to amalgamation?

Mr. Gunter: Certainly I will do everything within my power, but I remind my right hon. Friend—with his long experience I am sure that he will take the point—that the responsibility for solving this inter-union warfare within the docks at least ought to be shared with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and they have been trying to come to terms with it. If my right hon. Friend wants me to say that the solution to many of our problems in the docks would be one union, I would entirely agree with him. In the efforts which I am making to have a common registration in the docks we may make a move in that direction.

Sir C. Osborne: What are the grave difficulties that prevent this sensible amalgamation between these two competing unions?

Mr. Gunter: I would only say to the hon. Gentleman that he should turn to the history of industrial relations in the docks.

Youth Employment Service

Mr. Scott: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now make a statement on the future development of the Youth Employment Service.

Mr. Gunter: No, Sir. I wish to consult the interested local authority associations and my National Youth Employment Council on the legislative recommendations of the Albemarle Working Party, before making any further statement.

Mr. Scott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the third stonewalling Answer which I have had from the Government Bench on this subject in the last six months? Is it not time that the Government's recommendations were put before the House? Is he aware that there is a widespread feeling that what is needed is a comprehensive careers advisory service not concentrating solely on school leavers but available to all who need help?

Mr. Gunter: If the hon. Member would be patient until Christmas time, I hope before then to issue a statement on the memorandum arising from the working party.

School Leavers

Miss Lestor: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give for each of the years 1963 to 1966 the number of school leavers who had not found employment within three months of leaving school.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The figures are as follows: 1963, 19,557; 1964, 8,538; 1965, 6,449 and 1966, 7,762.

Miss Lestor: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask her whether she is aware that in my constituency the youth employment officer expresses concern whether he will find difficulty in placing school leavers when the next batch leaves? [An HON. MEMBER: "Old Etonians?"] Not only ex-Etonians. Is she aware of this, and could she say whether it is peculiar to Slough or is likely to be repeated in other parts of the country?

Mrs. Williams: In October, 1966, only 1·6 per cent. of the summer leavers known to the Youth Employment Service were still unemployed and prospects in most areas are good. It may be that this is a local difficulty which my hon. Friend may like to raise with us.

Vauxhall Motors Ltd. (Employment)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Labour if he will discuss with Vauxhall Motors Limited the average numbers which they hope to employ at Luton and Dunstable, respectively, for the years 1967, 1968, 1969, and 1970.

Mr. Gunter: My local officers are in frequent touch with Vauxhall Motors about future developments in employment. The firm has also co-operated with my Department in studies of future employment trends by providing forecasts up to 1968 and longer-term indications of changes in occupational structure.

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful for that Answer and I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that long-term planning of this kind is essential if we are to avoid redundancies in this type of industry every few years. Will he further

agree with me that the Government are a vital third party in any discussion between men and management in this field?

Mr. Gunter: I would agree on both points.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Does not the Minister agree that while it is important for a firm such as Vauxhalls to negotiate and liaise with his own Ministry, it would be wrong to disclose the figures of people they hope to employ five years hence in view of the possibility of giving information to competitors?

Mr. Gunter: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making the point and for allowing me to point out that the figures are given to us in confidence and will be retained as such.

Trade Unions (Recognition)

Mr. Park: asked the Minister of Labour what consultations he has had with employers on the recognition of trade unions.

Mr. Gunter: None centrally; but the services of my industrial relations officers are available locally in particular cases of difficulty.

Mr. Park: Is the Minister aware that certain firms in receipt of Government contracts, such as Pitchmastic Quarries Limited, which is an establishment in my constituency, steadfastly refuse not only to grant negotiating rights to trade unions but even to discuss the matter under the auspices of his Ministry? Will he seek to strengthen the fair wages resolution in order to deal with this problem?

Mr. Gunter: Yes, indeed, I am aware of the obstructionist attitude of many employers. I would point out that I have no ultimate power in this matter to secure recognition, but in the 18 months ending in September there were 179 cases of non-recognition brought to the attention of my conciliation officers and we were able to get at least 53 per cent. of them settled in a manner in which the employers recognised the unions. I agree that there is a long way to go, and I repeat the appeal which I have made before that management ought to be very careful indeed before it adopts this attitude.

Declaration of Human Rights (Article 20(2))

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent his Department conforms to Article 20(2) of the Declaration of Human Rights.

Mr. Gunter: I accept the principle laid down in this Article.

Mr. Osborn: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Britain is still a signatory? Is he aware that many countries which are signatories have banned the closed shop? May I draw his attention to, and urge him to make inquiries about, the circumstances relating to a closed shop in Sheffield, as a result of which one individual is suffering hardship and his wife a mental breakdown?

Mr. Gunter: I am fully aware of the incident in Sheffield. I have said that we accept the principle laid down in this Article. The hon. Gentleman will know that there are many conflicting arguments about the closed shop and that they are not all on one side. That is why, to be repetitious, in the evidence which we and others gave to the Royal Commission we said that we should like guidance on what to do about this issue.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. Marten: asked the Paymaster General which are the home information services for the co-ordination of which he is answerable in Parliament.

The Paymaster General (Mr. George Wigg): None, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Why, then, did the Prime Minister say that the Paymaster-General was responsible for answering Questions in the House of Commons on the question of co-ordination of home information services? Secondly, would the Minister seriously tell us what else he does? Is he aware that it is becoming widely believed, unfortunately, that he collects dossiers on Members of this House? If there are any such activities, would he realise that these are quite alien to this country and repugnant to the House?

Mr. Wigg: What the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has to do with the Question on the Order Paper I do not know, except to repeat

a smear which the hon. Gentleman has not the guts to repeat outside this House. Secondly, as regards the Question on the Order Paper, the hon. Gentleman clearly cannot understand English, even if he can read it. The words "for" and "about" have different meanings. If he consults page 4 of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, he will find a definition of the word "about" and on page 443 a definition of the word "for". My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he would not appoint a Minister for Co-ordination because he thought that it was improper that a Minister of the Crown should carry out, as in the previous Administration, party duties. My right hon. Friend said on another occasion that I would answer Questions about co-ordination.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Do the Paymaster General's duties include re-editing hand-outs of the Minister without Portfolio?

Mr. Wigg: No, Sir, they do not include re-editing hand-outs, nor re-editing HANSARD, as was necessary on a previous occasion.

Mr. Marten: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. If the hon. Gentleman weekly makes the same allegation and never on one single occasion seeks—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is not a point of order."] Mr. Speaker, further to that point of order. As the hon. Gentleman, week after week, gives the same notice and raises the same point of order and has never on any occasion sought the Adjournment, is he not abusing the procedure of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that Members will not raise points of order on the giving of formal notice to the House of the intention to raise a matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE CLUB, CROYDON

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. DAVID WINNICK: To ask the hon. and learned Member for Brigg, as Second Church Estates Commissioner,


what consultations are taking place with the International Language Club at Croydon so as to prevent the Club having to close down due to leases coming to an end.

Mr. Speaker: May I inform the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) that, owing to the absence of the Second Church Estates Commissioner—he is ill—Question No. 36 cannot be answered.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order. You say, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. and learned Friend is ill and therefore that an Oral Answer cannot be given. Is the House to understand that a Written Answer will be made in due course?

Mr. Speaker: There is nobody who can give the Answer but the Second Church Estates Commissioner, and he is in isolation at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. A. Royle: On a point of order. May I ask you for your advice, Mr. Speaker? Since the matter detailed in Questions Nos. 62 and 63, which stand in may name, includes aspects that entail the muzzling of the Press by Her Majesty's Government, may I ask the Minister of Labour to answer these Questions now, at the end of Question Time?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may ask the right hon. Gentleman, but it is for the Minister to decide. I have had no intimation that the right hon. Gentleman intends to answer those Questions now.

GIBRALTAR

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. DANCE: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding relations between Gibraltar and Spain.

Mr. WINGFIELD-DIGBY: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the negotiations with Spain have been protracted; and what concessions he has offered to Spain.

Mr. GEORGE JEGER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

whether the Spanish Government has now replied to the proposal that the legal aspect of their claim to Gibraltar should be referred to the International Court of Justice.

Mr. WILLIAM HAMILTON: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will, in view of recent developments, now give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not relinquish sovereignty over Gibraltar so long as the Gibraltarians wish Great Britain to retain it.

Mr. FISHER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give a categoric assurance that British sovereignty over Gibraltar will be maintained; and what retaliatory measures he proposes to take against Spain, in view of the mounting Spanish restrictions against Gibraltar.

Mr. PALMER: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that the principle of self determination by the inhabitants remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the future of Gibraltar.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Questions Nos. 78, 83, 84, 85 and 88 together.
I apologise for the fact that this Answer must, in the nature of things, be longer than I normally like to give.
May I start by reaffirming that Gibraltar is, of course, British by right. Recent Spanish actions, including the Spanish Government's activity in imposing new restriction at the frontier, and the mob attacks on our Consulates, which I deplore, cannot affect this fact.
As the House is aware, I have said that it is the duty of nations such as ours to set an example in the peaceful settlement of disputes by referring them to a world authority. This is what we have suggested in this case. We have proposed to the Spanish Government that all the legal issues in dispute between them and us over Gibraltar should be referred to the International Court of Justice.
The Spanish Government have not yet replied. But if the Spanish Government accept the proposal it will be for the


Court to decide on all the questions referred to it, including questions of sovereignty, and the Spanish Government and Her Majesty's Government would be bound by the Court's decisions.
The fact that we have suggested a reference to the Court does not, of course, mean that we have any doubts about our rights. On the contrary, we have no such doubt, but we do have faith in these civilised methods of settling disputes.
The House would, I think, like to have a full record of what has passed in these talks. I am, therefore, proposing to lay a White Paper containing all the documents later this week.
I would add just this, that our proposal is entirely consistent with our determination to safeguard the interests of the people of Gibraltar, as, indeed, the United Nations Charter requires us to do. Let me therefore make it quite clear that it remains the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government to sustain Gibraltar in her present difficulties, and that if we think that further financial aid is needed for that purpose we will provide it.

Mr. Dance: That is all right as far as it goes, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Gibraltar want a clear-cut assurance from Her Majesty's Government about their future? [HON. MEMBERS: "They have had it".] They have not been given one. Is he further aware that they require an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not be intimidated by any threats from Spain?

Mr. Brown: I am fairly sure that when the hon. Gentleman has given himself time to study my statement he will find that I have given as wide an assurance as the people of Gibraltar want and as wide as it is sensible for me to give.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: If Spain refuses to go to the International Court, will the endless negotiations go on? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are giving an impression of weakness here and, it seems, of weakness in Spain, too, where we read today about troop concentrations?

Mr. Brown: It is always better to talk than not to talk, and tough words are sometimes an excuse for inaction.

The hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that we are already planning should his hypothetical situation arise.

Mr. George Jeger: Would my right hon. Friend inform the House whether any time limit has been set to the offer made to Spain to submit the matter to the International Court? Will the White Paper contain a statement on the concessions which have been offered to Spain during the course of the secret talks which have been going on?

Mr. Brown: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "No, Sir"; it would not be sensible to do so, as my hon. Friend will recognise if he considers the matter in detail.
The answer to the second point of the question is that our counter-proposals to those of Spain will be included in the White Paper.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement which he has made must give reassurance not only to the Gibraltarians, but probably to everybody in the world, who welcome Her Majesty's Government's adherence to any future decision of the International Court? However, will he give an assurance to the House that failing the Spaniards accepting to take the case to the International Court, we will give continued assistance to the Gibraltarians for however long a period as might be necessary? Has my right hon. Friend considered the taking of retaliatory action by Her Majesty's Government failing this assurance from the Spaniards?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. I answered the second part of it in the last sentence of my statement, when I said that it was our intention
… to sustain Gibraltar in her present difficulties …".
To answer the third part of his question, about taking retaliatory action, it happens to be a firm conviction of mine, and of Her Majesty's Government, that this seldom advances anybody.

Mr. Fisher: That may be so, but surely, after two years, we should seriously consider breaking off these talks under duress if the Spanish reply on the question of the International Court is not satisfactory. To follow the point made by the hon.


Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), is it not possible, after two years of sustained, increasing and unjustified pressures on Gibraltar, for us to consider some form of economic retaliatory action?

Mr. Brown: My answer to that question is "No, Sir", as it is the hon. Gentleman's answer in other cases.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Gibraltar wish to determine their own future in association with the British Crown? Will this be stressed in any submissions that are made to the International Court, should the dispute go to the Court?

Mr. Brown: This is, clearly, one of the considerations to be taken into account. We also have the fact that the United Nations Special Committee and United Nations General Assembly have considered this matter. The Special Committee certainly did not take the view that that was satisfactory and the General Assembly called upon us to have talks. My hon. Friend may take it that we have this matter very much in mind, but that we are trying to work this out in accordance with international practice.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of trouble might have been saved if Her Majesty's Government had made much earlier the statement the right hon. Gentleman has made today? Will he answer one specific question? We understand that certain questions will be put to the International Court. Are we to have those in the White Paper, or will the right hon. Gentleman inform us about what they are in any other way?

Mr. Brown: To answer the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, what he said could be said about many statements which the right hon. Gentleman himself made in this House as well as outside. As a matter of fact, a lot of trouble would have been saved the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot have politics played on only one side.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second point—the more serious part of his question—is that if the Spaniards accept our proposal the terms of reference will be agreed between us; and,

obviously, they could not be announced by us in advance of their answer.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the Foreign Secretary point out to the Spanish Government that although we have no intention of taking economic measures of retaliation against them, their intransigent and truculent attitude over Gibraltar is likely to discourage many British tourists who might otherwise have thought of visiting Spain?

Mr. Brown: I did not pronounce on the first part of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher). I only thought that it would not be a very sensible thing to do now. But I am quite sure that the Spaniards will take notice of what the hon. Gentleman has said and of the feeling of the House about the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: What possible complaint can be laid against the Government over their attitude to the Gibraltar situation? Arising out of the supplementary question asked by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), is it not true that the Government have from the outset declared their willingness to refer this matter to the International Court? Which is preferable: to try to evoke a peaceful settlement with the Government of Spain over this situation and protect the interests of the people of Gibraltar, or to antagonise the people of Spain and their Government and declare—what? A state of war?

Mr. Brown: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. If hon. Members opposite who sounded so bellicose the other day—and perhaps I may say that I think that my hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary had a pretty rough time and a pretty unjustifiably rough time then—[Interruption.]—would just consider the matter for a moment, it surely must occur to them that the way in which we are proposing to deal with the question, and are dealing with it, is a good deal more to the comfort of the Gibraltarians than are the implications of what they are suggesting.

Mr. Heath: While we understand that what is referred to the International Court must be a matter of agreement between the two countries, will the Foreign Secretary nevertheless reconsider his reply


about stating the terms which we ourselves proposed? If he is to publish a White Paper with all the documents, surely he can publish what we ourselves have proposed.
Secondly, could the Foreign Secretary clarify his own statement? When he speaks of referring all the legal issues, does this include the question of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, about the Rock of Gibraltar itself, or only about the so-called neutral zone, because, although there is dispute over the Rock, as I understand it is not a dispute about the economic implications of Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht? Could he say whether the reference includes the whole of that, or only the so-called neutral zone?

Mr. Brown: I am not at all sure that that will be a very helpful question for me to answer at this stage of the talks—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman considers it, he will see that it is not a very helpful point to make—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] As far as the Government and myself are concerned, there is no distinction. We shall refer all the legal questions which are in dispute between the two Governments to the International Court, and seek to get terms of reference that cover them. I do not think that it is at all sensible for us to try to draw a distinction of that kind.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether he has secured full support from the United States Government for the attitude which the British Government have taken? Does he not think that the United States Government are in a particularly good position to use their influence to persuade the Spanish Government to make a civilised response to my right hon. Friend's proposal?

Mr. Brown: I have not sought the support or help of any other Government. We are discussing this matter with the Spanish Government. We regard it as a matter that can be solved between us if they are willing, and I very much hope that they will be.

Mr. Heath: In the situation we have now reached over this very difficult problem the Foreign Secretary is not justified in saying to the House that it is not

helpful to ask such a question or give an answer to it. If the Foreign Secretary says that he does not distinguish between the Rock and Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht and the so-called neutral zone, does it mean that he is referring the whole question, including Article X, to the International Court?

Mr. Brown: It means that I believe that our rights to both are firm and existing. I would be a very foolish man to indicate that there was any distinction between them. We shall, therefore, stand on our rights to both, and we shall refer the legal questions to the International Court.
I forgot earlier to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about including the terms of reference in the White Paper. The answer is that I think it best not to include the terms of reference we have in mind. It would be only courteous, I think, to reserve those for agreement with the Spanish Government if the Spanish Government care to give it.

Dr. John Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the new-found concern of the Spanish Government for Gibraltar contrasts very sharply with the consistent neglect of the same Government for their own African territory, whose population is about ten times larger than the population of Gibraltar, and who have never been given any opportunity of self-determination, and where there is no sem-blence of democracy as we understand it in Great Britain or Gibraltar?

Mr. Brown: It may well be so, and I have it very much in mind, and I cannot myself understand why the members of the Committee of Twenty Four did not have it more in their minds when they passed their resolution. But they did pass that resolution, and I must deal with the situation as it now is.

Mr. Heath: I still do not understand why the Foreign Secretary cannot answer a straightforward question. He is now falling into the same position as the Colonial Secretary fell into for so long. Does his answer mean that he is referring Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht as well as the so-called neutral zone to the International Court—yes or no?

Mr. Brown: It means that I am willing to refer all the legal issues in dispute


between the two Governments to the International Court—all of them. But I would tell the right hon. Gentleman quite firmly and frankly that in trying to draw a distinction between the Isthmus and the Rock he is doing this country no service at all.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Foreign Secretary give us an assurance that at this moment of international tension he will not renew the negotiations with the Spanish Government that were conducted by the Opposition, when in government, for the modernisation of the Spanish Navy?

Mr. Brown: I have forborne to mention that delicate subject, but I am very interested in the different attitude of the Opposition when in opposition from the attitude they adopted when in government.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by referring Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, which the Spanish Government do not regard as a legal issue but a political issue, he himself is weakening the whole basis of his arguments?

Mr. Brown: There are many hon. Members and some right hon. Members on the right hon. Gentleman's own side who know on what dangerous ground he is now treading.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

GEORGE BLAKE (ESCAPE FROM PRISON)

Mr. Heath: Mr. Heath (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the possible implications for national security of the escape of George Blake.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson) rose——

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman the temporary Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member does not advance his point of order by trying to make political points.

Mr. Roberts: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to bring the House into disrepute by using this Chamber to make political capital out of the movements of a convicted spy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have an idea that this Chamber is a place where political capital is made from time to time. The Prime Minister—to answer the Private Notice Question.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Inquiries on this were immediately set in train the moment Blake's escape was reported. They have confirmed that he has had no access to official information since September, 1960; that all possible measures were taken at that time to neutralise any further exploitation against this country of information which he had disclosed; and that his escape should not therefore result in further damage to national security.
In accordance with the normal practice in cases of this kind, I have already discussed the matter with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and, of course, I shall be in touch with him again if any new information comes to light.

Mr. Heath: The House will be glad to have the assurance which the Prime Minister has just given and to know that he has satisfied himself that in his view George Blake cannot do further damage to the national interest. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, he has had talks with me in the usual way about this matter.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a case of such national importance and international significance, as I have described it, the country feels that it is entitled to an independent assurance such as was envisaged through the Security Commission in any normal security case? It would be an independent view which could be made public. Is he aware that because of the terms of reference of the Security Commission, this case does not, in fact, fit those circumstances? Therefore, will he consider, so that there should be an independent assurance to the country, either that the terms of the Security Commission should be adapted or another suitable form of inquiry should be made which could then give its own views to the country independently?

The Prime Minister: I thought it right to make available to the right hon. Gentleman, in conformity with our longstanding practice, the information at our disposal. As the then Prime Minister said at the time of the Philby case, it was a long-standing tradition to discuss the matter between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister of the day in matters such as this.
On our information, there is no suggestion at all of any risk to national security. If any other matter came to light I should, naturally, want to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman whether any further inquiry was needed, and also the form the inquiry should take.
On the broader question of the terms of reference of the Security Commission, which were, in fact, widened as a result of a statement of mine last year, I should be prepared to discuss this question as a general question with the right hon. Gentleman, although I do not think that there is any need for a reference to that Commission in this case.

Mr. Bellenger: Although many of us understand, in matters of security like this, the difficulty of making public details which may emerge, nevertheless the Leader of the Opposition has now given publicity to something which is disturbing the minds not only of hon. Members but of many of our constituents. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend that if anything does come to light in his further investigations he will not limit it to the Leader of the Opposition but, in general terms at least, inform the House,

The Prime Minister: Oh, yes, Sir. If anything came to light that involved any change in the Answer I have given to the House, I would, of course, discuss it first with the right hon. Gentleman and then, in accordance with practice, I would discuss what should then be done to inform the House of what consequential action should be taken on the information available, but the Answer I have given represents the facts.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Prime Minister tell the House when Blake was last interrogated? It is quite clear that no information was given to Blake since his arrest, but in the process of interrogation one of the dangers is that by the form of interrogation there must arise areas in which we are interested.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that this question of interrogation was, naturally, one of the important questions I had to consider before framing my Answer. I do not think that it would be in accordance with usual practice if I answered in any more detail.

Mr. Thorpe: Without asking the Prime Minister to go into detail, may I ask whether he has seen the suggestion that Blake may well have been in touch with people outside the prison before making his escape? Has the Prime Minister considered who those persons are likely to have been and whether it is possible that damaging information might have been obtained from them?

The Prime Minister: I have seen this particular suggestion. This matter is, of course, relevant to the inquiry to be conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Mountbatten. It is an issue which would be relevant to the debate which will follow later in the day, but nothing we have seen on that score or any other suggests that there is any danger to national security.

ZAMBIA (DEPORTATION OF UNITED KINGDOM CITIZENS)

Mr. Evelyn King: Mr. Evelyn King (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent deportations of British citizens from Zambia, and what representations the British High Commissioner is making.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): These deportations were announced by the Zambian Ministry of Home Affairs on the morning of 27th October. Earlier warnings were made by President Kaunda that racially-minded persons who were fomenting discontent on the Copper Belt would be deported. No names were given, and I asked our Acting High Commissioner to find out urgently if the names of any United Kingdom citizens were included. On ascertaining that United Kingdom citizens were, in fact, involved, our Acting High Commissioner in Lusaka was instructed to make a protest against the very short notice given to the persons deported.
The Acting High Commissioner was instructed to make it clear that the British Government did not question in principle the right of other Commonwealth Governments to expel United Kingdom nationals We did reserve the right to make representations in individual cases, if the right to expel appeared to be exercised arbitrarily or in circumstances which would cause hardship to individuals. I myself, on the evening of the 27th October, asked the Zambian High Commissioner to call on me at the House of Commons, and spoke to him in this sense. I made it clear that there could well be hardship arising from the suddenness of these deportations which was, in my opinion, inconsistent with the humanitarian views consistently held by the Zambian Government.
The Zambian Government's answer to our representations has now been received. The reply contains an assurance that the Zambian Government are prepared to receive representations from Her Majesty's Government in individual cases, but there are certain points I am still pursuing with the Zambian Government.

Mr. King: May I congratulate the right hot. Gentleman on what he has said, and, of course, deplore any unwise conduct which has taken place? Does he accept that it would be the unanimous view of  House that if Britain were to expel 11 Africans at 24 hours' notice, without charge made, that would be unthinkable and that civilised action which we wish to preserve will not be made easier if Africans thus behave to Europeans?

Mr. Bowden: The House may wish to be aware that the actual number is still unknown, that is the number of United Kingdom citizens. It is probably as high as 12 out of the 25. I made it absolutely clear to the High Commissioner for Zambia, when he called on me here, that in our view the 24 hours' notice, without any charge being made, was extremely unsatisfactory, and I asked for an explanation.

Mr. Winnick: While deploring the action of the Zambian Government in this respect, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the I.U.D.I. in Rhodesia undermines the whole security position of

Europeans in African-ruled countries and the action of the Tory Opposition in giving support to Smith undermines the position of many Europeans in many other African nations?

Mr. Bowden: Action in any particular country does, of course, have an effect on others, but I should have thought, in view of the earlier advice of the Zambian Government and the representations I have made to them, that they would be able to provide us with rather more information about United Kingdom deportees.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to this country recognising the right of other countries to expel United Kingdom citizens, would he make it clear that the expulsion of British nationals abroad, without charge or conviction made against them on any offence known to the law, is inconsistent with the previous relationshop between Commonwealth countries and is one which Her Majesty's Government would repudiate strongly?

Mr. Bowden: I have already said that the short 24 hours' notice is one of the difficulties here. We would like and have asked the Zambian Government to let us have the names of the deportees and their offences.

Mr. Faulds: Is it not a fact that bad relations with 7ambia stem directly from the racialist attitudes of the Smith régime which are supported by, and sympathised with in their hearts by, members of the Opposition?

Mr. Bowden: I do not accept for one moment that there are bad relations with Zambia. This is one incident which can be cleared up very quickly.

Mr. Thorpe: In view of the admirable record which President Kaunda has had in trying to set up a non-racial society, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is far too early to pass judgment one way or the other on this case? Would he also agree that the tensions which are set up are a direct result of the Government's failure to bring down the Smith régime?

Mr. Bowden: I accept that there are considerable tensions in the Copper Belt, but I would still reiterate that if we had


information about recent individual deportations we would more easily be able to assess the importance of this.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — LAND COMMISSION BILL

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

4.2 p.m.

The Minister of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Frederick Willey): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In the White Paper we said:
The view that control over development must be exercised by the community is not now seriously disputed and it is generally accepted that the value attached to land by the right to develop it is a value which has substantially been created by the community.
That conclusion has been fully justified by our discussion on the Bill.
No one would deny the patience and courtesy of Lord Silkin, but the 1947 Bill was obstructed in Committee and was subjected to the Guillotine. As one who has had a good deal of experience in opposition, I am relieved and satisfied to have reached Third Reading without having had to resort to a Closure on a single occasion and without even mention or suspicion of a Closure. There have been complaints about the length and complexity of the Bill, but, '00 hint of a Closure. The Bill was dealt with in Standing Committee in only 21 Sittings. I am entitled to take those complaints with a pinch of salts. No hon. Member can complain that the Bill has not been adequately discussed.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham page) and colleagues for the meticulous care which they gave in our consideration of the Bill. I do not wish to prejudice the hon. Gentleman by too much praise from this Bench, but I recoginse his hard and tenacious argument on the consideration of the Bill.
I recall, Sir, that when he was a Law Officer on the Government Front Bench, and I was leading for the Opposition, your predecessor Sir Harry Hylton-Foster, sent me a note saying:
And even the ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer.
I would convey the same message to the hon. Member for Crosby. He also


took upon himself the difficult task of improving the Bill. I hope that he will not charge me with being unresponsive. We have, in fact, seriously considered the more constructive proposals he made. A large number of Government Amendments and Schedules on Report were in response to requests by the hon. Gentleman to amplify and extend the Bill. I would add that those Schedules were, without exception, to relieve and advantage the levy-payer.
I cannot disguise the fact that this is a complicated Bill. I agree with Dr. Denman—and this is the only point on which I do agree with him—that land is a bundle of interests, a bundle of rights, and that if one is affected the others are affected. It is an inevitable consequence that any legislation affecting land, whatever it be, is complicated.
I admit that I could have made the Bill shorter and simpler. I could have said that here we were establishing a responsible public body, and much could have been left to the judgment and discretion of the Land Commission itself. The Commission could have been left to devise its own rules. I believe that Parliament itself should closely define the operation of the levy. I am sure that is right. It certainly has not been challenged. I could also have followed precedents. I could have left much more to regulations, and thereby shortened the Bill itself. Nowadays, complicated legislation is unavoidable and is accepted by the House. However, I have tried as far as possible to limit any resort to regulations. Where it has been unavoidable, I nave conceded, as in Case F, for example, that the resort to regulations should be as closely defined as possible.
The White Paper was presented over a year ago. That means that we are drawing to the end of what was bound to be a difficult interim period. The Bill makes special provision for house builders. We extended this still further in Standing Committee. These provisions have been welcomed, but my critics have said that the White Paper and the introduction of the Bill would lead to a sharp increase in land prices and a drying-up in the supply of land for development during the interim period.
I am happy to say that those gloomy prognostications have not been borne out. On the contrary, the land famine we have

suffered from in past years has, if anything, eased somewhat. It is a little less acute at the moment than it was some time ago. There is no evidence that land prices have been aff by the Government's proposals. Recently, they appear to have steadied again.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Would the Minister agree that land prices have, in fact, been rising steadily? Would he also agree that if there is some land not being developed it is because of the Government having halted so many essential building programmes, including the house-building programme?

Mr. Willey: We are on Third Reading. I am dealing only with the allegation that the introduction of the White Paper and the Bill would lead to both scarcity of land and higher prices. This has not been borne out.
There is obviously a correlation between land prices and the supply of land for development. Indeed, this is a major argument for the Commission. Despite the ambivalence of the Opposition, I am convinced that most people now accept the view of the Government that there is something special about development value which justifies special treatment. In spite of the continuous debate we have had on the Bill, I remain equally convinced that it is administratively impractical to use the normal taxation system to deal with development value.
There is a further point: if the levy might result in land being withheld from the market, if there is any risk, it is equally right that the body responsible for the levy should be armed with compulsory purchase powers. If there is any risk of land being withheld or, for that matter, any risk of part of the levy being passed on to the purchaser, the risk would be exactly the same in anything proposed by the Opposition in substitution for the levy.
Having said that, I agree that the rate of the levy is not unimportant. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said he had no disagreement with the levy in principle, but that it should be at a moderate level. We have had our protracted discussions, but so far the Opposition have remained coy on what they regard as being a moderate rate of levy. Indeed, so far, inasmuch as they have


treated development value separately, they appear to have discriminated in favour of the landowner and in favour of the speculator. Sir Colirnton-Kemsley, who used to grace the benches opposite, and who has considerable experience in development and property, put forward the notion of 50 per cent.
The Government have made their intentions quite clear by stating in the White Paper that the levy
will be prescribed by order at an initial rate of 40 per cent. which in the Government's view is a modest rate leaving ample incentive to owners to offer land for development. But it is the Government's intention to increase the rate progressively to 45 per cent. and then to 50 per cent. at reasonably short intervals. The question of increasing the rate further will be examined as acquisitions by the Commission, and thus their ability to provide land for development, increase.
I believe that this is a moderate approach. When the White Paper was published, this was generally accepted as a moderate approach. I agree with the Financial Times that the warning that the rate will increase should help to bring land more quickly on to the market.
However, although we have got the rate right, clearly if we impose a levy we must have powers to ensure that development is not frustrated by landowners withholding land on account of the levy. If there is any risk, the Commission must be prepared to use its powers to bring land forward for development.
Even within the context of the levy and of betterment, there is an irrefutable need for a national body with effective compulsory purchase powers. As I see it, the position is that, impelled by the scandal of land prices, the Government are taking steps generally recognised as reasonable. They will not be held up to ransom by certain landowners and speculators.
As has been recognised throughout our debates, the Commission has two objectives. It is not concerned only with the scandal of land prices. It is not concerned only to secure that a substantial part of the development value created by the community returns to the community so that the burden of the cost of land for essential purposes is reduced. It is concerned, also, to secure that the right land is available at the right time for the implementation of national, regional and local plans.
The Opposition have constantly argued that, to do this, all that is required is an improvement of planning procedures. It would be inappropriate to pursue this far on Third Reading. I would merely say that, while they were in office, the Opposition showed little concern about this. In fact, we are now considering ways and means of making planning more expeditious and more efficient.
The Bill is not concerned with planning itself. It is concerned with the implementation of planning policies. The Commission itself is not a planning authority. In the Bill, I went to pains to provide that the Commission can exercise its compulsory purchase powers only where there is a decision of a planning authority indicating that the land is suitable for development. The purpose of the Commission is to introduce a new dynamic, positive element into planning.
At present, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) knows, because he has called attention to this, there is an enormous number of outstanding planning permissions not exercised because the land is not available. To seek a solution by having more and more planning permissions is defeatist. It would result only in half-hearted, second-rate planning. To be effective—this is where the Commission will help—the most suitable land must be developed first at the time that it is required. The only satisfactory solution is to use, if necessary, the powers of compulsory purchase provided in the Bill to ensure that in fact the development takes place in the right place and at the right time.
However, the Commission will not use its powers only to bring land forward where at present it is being withheld. The new towns and some of the more enlightened local authorities have demonstrated the advantages of acquisition well in advance of development. Indeed, as I said in a previous debate, I am certain that without advance acquisition, bringing the whole of the land into single ownership, satisfactory development on a substantial scale is impracticable. Unification of ownership is absolutely essential if development is to take place in an orderly co-ordinated fashion.
I am not thinking only of comprehensive redevelopment, the rehabilitation of twilight areas, or the harmonising of


acceptable development with the country side. Obviously, the regional plans involve considerable extensive development possibly disregarding local authority boundaries. They envisage the release of substantial areas for private development. In all this I am convinced that the Commission will play a decisive rôle. Once land to be developed has been determined, the Commission can buy and manage the land so that it can be effectively released for development and ensure that meanwhile the best agricultural use is made of the land right up to the point of development.

Mr. John Farr: The right hon. Gentleman used a phrase a short time ago which none of us heard him use in Committee, namely, "unification of ownership". How far does he envisage that such unification will go, because this is a very important point?

Mr. Willey: There will be unification of ownership because the Commission will take into its ownership the land required for development.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: "Unification" literally means "monopoly". Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that or not, because monopoly means land nationalisation?

Mr. Willey: I thought that it was clear, but I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for seeking clarification. I was using this in the context of a specific acquisition for particular development and saying that, if there is to be orderly development, unification of ownership is necessary.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull) rose——

Mr. Willey: I will not give way now. We have only a short time for debate. I would rather proceed and allow more hon. Members the chance to participate.
If we accept the scale of the task of reshaping our towns and cities, if we accept the present state of land prices as being wholly indefensible, and if we accept that part of the development value should rest with the community, there is an unanswerable case for the Bill.
On Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham talked about the prospect of bitterness. He should have spoken retrospectively. The bitterness

is already there. In fact, it was given political expression at the last two General Elections. The bitterness arose because the Conservative Government, by allowing the opportunity of these vast windfall profits, allowed landowners to hold the whole of the planning system up to ransom. It arose because of the monstrous speculation which the Conservative Government not only tolerated, but, in fact, created. It arose from the land famine which was consequent on this.

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon rose——

Mr. Willey: No I will not give way.

Mr. Rippon: I am being attacked.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have the chance to reply. I was merely calling attention to the fact that the bitterness is there as a result of the actions of the previous Government. On the contrary, we find this absolutely intolerable. The sooner the Bill is effective the better. [Interruption.] The Bill is dealing with two things—betterment and the supply of land. Both things affect the price of land.

Mr. Rippon: How will it make an acre of land cheaper?

Mr. Willey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will continue to the last ditch his opposition to the Bill. In view of his record, this is not surprising.
I hope shortly to be able to announce the names of the prospective chairman and members of the Commission. I am sure that they will command the greatest respect. We are determined to avoid, as far as possible, any duplication of staff. We are recruiting the staff. For some time they have been attending training courses at Croydon. We have joint teams, with staff from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, carrying out surveys and studies of land availability in the more difficult areas. There will be teething troubles obviously, but at any rate we are at the moment making satisfactory and smooth progress.
To sum up, although the levy provisions are unavoidably and necessarily complicated, the provisions of the Bill itself are basically simple. To meet the objectives that we set ourselves in the


White Paper we are setting up a powerful Land Commission. The Commission, by agreement, will be able to buy any land which it has reason to think may be needed for development. Provided that there is planning permission, the Bill confers on the Commission comprehensive powers of compulsory purchase. The Commission can act expeditiously because of the vesting procedure and it can dispense with the ordinary conveyancing procedure. It does not affect at all the rights of the landowner.
The Commission has all the powers necessary to manage and improve land while it is in the Commission's possession, and, although its main task is to bring land forward for development, the Commission itself has powers to build and develop, though in the case of housing it would have to obtain the consent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. To aid the owner-occupier the Commission has power to dispose of land to him at less than market value. This is concessionary crownhold. It means for the owner-occupier that we can mitigate the high cost of houses.
The Commission, if it chooses, is able to dispose of land while retaining for the benefit of the Crown future development value. This is crownhold. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has said that he would give crownhold status to all land which passes through the Commission's hands. It will be for the Commission to decide in what form it can dispose of that, but I would agree with him that crownhold may for the future provide a solution to the problem of betterment.
I have been told, and I have been reminded again by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), that I am introducing creeping nationalisation. This is nonsense. The Commission is providing land for development. But, as I said before, I am not afraid of the charge. Already, a considerable amount of urban land is in public ownership, and, in so far as it is necessary to provide better towns and cities, the Commission will further public ownership. By the levy and by the fact that the Commission itself buys land, deducting levy from the price that it pays, the Bill deals with the problem

of betterment. It deals with it equitably because the burden of the levy falls on the person realising the profit—generally the landowner and not the developer. It is assessed on the actual price paid.
What is especially important is the fact that the Bill successfully avoids a two-price system. By doing this it removes any pressures on the Commission so that it can exercise its own judgment in extending its activities. It was for this reason that we were able to provide in the Bill itself the two appointed days, the two stages in the Bill——

Mr. Reginald Eyre: Mr. Reginald Eyre (Birmingham, Hall Green) rose——

Mr. Willey: I should like to give other Members an opportunity of taking part in the debate. We have only a short time.

Mr. Eyre: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of home ownership, may I point out that the small builders are confused as to how far the concessionary crownhold land will be allocated. Will the right hon. Gentleman say on what principles it is to be distributed?

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman knows well enough that this is a matter we discussed fully in Committee. This is no special problem for the Land Commission. We have got many precedents, in local authorities, housing associations, and other bodies.
I was saying that the extent of the Commission's activities will depend on the success of its activities. I am certain that this pragmatic, realistic approach is the right one. As the White Paper concludes, we intend to achieve our objectives
by a flexible system which, combining a levy with the other operations of the Commission, will both provide an effective and fair solution to the problem of betterment and ensure a sufficient and orderly supply of land for development.
The Bill provides a practical, empirical solution to the problem of betterment. I believe that it will be a final solution. The need for the Bill is urgent. Our planning beliefs have been subject to the test of experience, and the racket of land speculation has proved that, in fact, it is not true that speculative freedom results in the greater good. We have, therefore,


determined to end the scandal of land prices. We are determined to deal with the problem of betterment. We are determined, also, to provide an agency which will give effect to good purposeful planning.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn) rose——

Mr. Willey: The Bill provides a major radical reform. I am certain that this time, as I said before, the solution will be a final one.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I thank the Minister for his kind remarks at the beginning of his speech. It really is no traditional formality if I offer my sincere congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary for piloting the Bill through the Second Reading, the Committee and Report stages to this Third Reading stage.
My congratulations are all the more sincere because of the craft that these copilots had to pilot, namely, this Bill, this unnavigable juggernaut, which, if it ever sails, will collide with every principle of justice and liberty enshrined in the British Constitution. For the same reason my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman are just as sincere for the happy personal relationship we have had between the Government and the Opposition sides throughout the course of the passage of the Bill. But that is where the honeymoon ends.
Somehow, somebody persuaded the right hon. Gentleman into producing very long Schedules right at the last moment—complicated, unintelligible, unworkable Schedules which were just as much an embarrassment to him, I think, as they were to us. Had it been some other Minister, I would have accused him of deliberately withholding these Schedules so that we would not have time to understand them and debate them and would have to let them slip into the Bill. But I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not stoop to that sort of strategy.
I think that the reason is far more fundamental than that. It is simply this. Socialism does not work in practice. One put the theory into the text of a Bill, but then one has to work out how it will apply in practice; this is where one gets into these complicated and unworkable Schedules. The Minister only has to ask his own back benchers. I do not mean

the few who have come in here. Let him ask them outside in the corridors, and he will find that they are bitterly disappointed at a Bill of this sort, which they thought would be a simple little Bill of land nationalisation. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to tell my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), as he did just now, that this is not nationalisation. The Prime Minister has been stumping the country telling us that this is nationalisation of all urban building land. Whom are we to believe?
The Bill has turned into a mass of legal jargon and lawyer's jungle, which is what happens when one tries to put this sort of Socialist theory into practice. It has gradually dawned on the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, as well as those of us on this side of the House, that when one has a statute which one cannot explain to one's constituents, and which even professional men cannot explain, one is in the hands of the bureaucrats. One is under the heel of the bureaucrat, whom we identified in Committee as that short sighted little man in the attic office in Newcastle, making orders which there is no possibility of questioning because nobody understands the basis on which they are made.
The Labour Party should not show angry surprise at the impossible form of legislation which has developed from the theory of a Land Commission. Land nationalisation and the seizure of development value of buildings or land looks all very well in "Signposts for the Sixties" or "Socialist Commentary", but, like all Socialist theories, it does not work in practice—despite the Herculean task of the draftsmen who, working against time, two years, managed to produce this version of what I would call the "service of unholy deadlock". I was about to say that perhaps it was just in time for the child, the Land Commission, to be born in the vestry. It was not in time.
The Commission remains a statutory bastard. It is the result of a wholly unconstitutional union between compulsory acquisition and capital levy, and the Commission will inherit that dual personality. Under one hat it decides what property shall be seized, and it carries out the seizure. Under the other hat it assesses the levy to be imposed on property, and it collects that levy. I know of no other


unelected body that has ever been given those wide dual powers, striking right across the powers of local authorities and even of the Treasury.
Local authorities could have acquired democratically, in a proper way, with proper safeguards, for known purposes, all the property which the Land Commission will desire to acquire if its acts properly. The Exchequer could have assessed and collected the taxation on betterment. We should have had a chance to ask a responsible Minister about it and its citizen would have had a chance of taking any questions which he had through the process of taxation appeals. But now the levy is to be squeezed out of the victim, sometimes even before receipt of the money on which it is assessed and from which it is said to be payable.
I have made some rude remarks about the proposed Land Commission, which has the power to seize property and levy taxes. Now let us see for a moment what it is, or what it will be. It will be nine men appointed by the Minister, and each can be dismissed at the whim of the Minister. It will be required, according to Clause 1, to act upon the Minister's directions, which may be specific in the case of compulsory acquisition of land and the management of the Commission's land, which includes the allocation of concessionary crownhold. Is not this Ministerial control very significant?
At present, the Minister under the Bill is the Minister of Land and Natural Resources, but we all know that his office is under suspended death sentence and that there will be a take-over by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that that takeover is not imminent, or perhaps that it is "unthinkable", which means that it will happen in two months; or that there is "no intention" of it happening, which means that it will happen in one month; or that it is "quite impossible", which means that it will happen tomorrow. But at some time the Minister under the Bill will be the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Bearing that in mind, let us apply the Bill to the ordinary dwelling house, a person's home with a bit of garden to

spare. Let us assume that the home owner who is living there does not particularly want to sell because he knows that if he has to sell he must pay the levy, and he may not have enough money to buy a comparable house when the levy has been deducted from the proceeds of sale of his present house. But the Minister specifically directs the Land Commission to purchase the house, and so the Commission puts on a compulsory purchase order. The Commission need not state in the order the purpose for which it requires the property. That is a new piece of law about which we have protested through all the stages of the Bill, that the Land Commission can acquire property not only entirely arbitrarily, but without stating its purposes.
Having had the compulsory purchase order put on his dwelling-house the home owner appeals to the Minister, who, of course, will be the Minister who has given specific directions for the property to be acquired. Perhaps to save embarrassment to himself, the Minister will also have made an order for the special compulsory purchase procedure to apply, which means that there will be no inquiry and no appeal to anyone against that compulsory purchase order. The house and garden of a home may be taken away without anyone hearing the home owner's plea, and without anyone delivering a judgment, except perhaps the little man in the attic in Newcastle.
It has been said more than once, but it is worth mentioning again, that when one is summoned for a parking offence or sued for a few shillings' debt, British justice insists that one shall be allowed to plead one's case before a magistrate or judge, and judgment shall be delivered publicly. But under this Socialist Government one's home can be taken away without any form of justice, even of the crudest kind, being seen to be done. There is obviously no intention, under this Government, of justice being done when the individual's rights conflict with the claims of this politically guided Land Commission.
That is this Government's policy. A man can be chucked out of his home and perhaps, if he remembers a little bit of law, he will clutch his title deeds and say, "They can't take this away from me." Of course, he is not right. Under Clauses 9 and 10 and the Third Schedule, the


Land Commission can convey the property to itself without any title to it, merely signing the general vesting declaration, and it can thereupon deduct from the compensation what it thinks is the right amount of levy.
How does the levy arise? The process emerges in this complicated Bill that 95 per cent. of all transactions in land are notifiable to the Land Commission in the future. I guess that figure, but I am pretty certain that I am very nearly right. Even the smallest transactions are notifiable. In addition, all starts of change of structure or use of property will be notifiable to the Land Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman optimistically said that a staff of 2,000 can cope with all that. I wonder whether that staff of 2,000, who, we are told, are already in training in courses at Croydon, have found the Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman describes it, basically simple. With all these transactions to be reported to the Commission, it will be impossible even to sort them out and file them with a staff kept down to 2,000. That staff is only just the clerks. They will pass the notices to district valuers—how many of them we cannot tell—who will ascertain, to put it briefly, the gain which has been or will be made out of each transaction. That gain has to be divided into two parts, current use value and net development value. It is significant that neither of those expressions is defined in the Bill.
Thus, one is left with somebody somewhere guessing at figures, guessing at the gain made or likely to be made out of a transaction, guessing at the division between the assessment by which the current use value of the property has increased and the amount by which the net development value has increased, and charging on that two sets of taxes, Capital Gains Tax or Corporation Tax on the current use value, and capital levy under the Bill on the net development value.
Could anyone have conceived a more incredibly stupid and uncertain form of taxation? If there is one thing required in any taxation, it is that there should be some certainty about it, that the taxpayer, the levy-payer, should be able to ascertain what is the right figure he should pay. But under the Bill it will be quite impossible for the professional man, let alone the ordinary citizen, to ascertain the figures. The whole Bill will prove unworkable in this respect.
The danger is that the Government will try to make it workable both as regards the levy and as regards the property monopoly which the right hon. Gentleman chose to call unification of ownership. Whether it is a local monopoly or a national monopoly makes very little difference. It is an effort to draw together into the hands of the Commission the property in a certain area so that it may be devoted to certain purposes without competition from elsewhere. All this—trying to work an unworkable Bill—will cause untold damage to development, and this in face of a disastrous drop in the rate of house building and a deliberate Government contraction of the construction industry.
As one reads through the Bill again, after one struggles with it in Committee and after its being doubled in size on Report, one cannot but come to the conclusion that it will be an absolute disaster for the economy of the country as a whole.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I concur in what has been said by my right hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about our amicable work in Committee. There were passages at times which could not have been said to be exactly calm, but heat generally did not overboil the pot to the extent that there was much deliberate obstruction, though there was occasionally.
My right hon. Friend said that we had only 21 sittings in the Standing Committee. I myself feel the same—that other hon. Members feel the same—that those sittings went on for a very long time. Of course, legislation of the kind with which we are now dealing unavoidably has a great deal of tediousness about it, but anyone in the country who has seriously considered the question of land, land prices and land speculation does not doubt that there is the greatest need for legislation.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have admitted this. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), about whom I may have something to say later, has said so. While great mistakes may have been made in previous legislation, there is no doubt that authoritative reports from both individuals and organisations have clearly and unmistakeably indicated the need


for Government legislation to tackle the question of land being available where necessary and at the right price.

Mr. Rippon: How will the Bill change the cost of an acre of land?

Mr. Manuel: I shall come to that in dealing with the local authorities. At least, it will not go into the one big private pocket of someone who, possibly, could not produce the title deeds of the land, about which the hon. Member for Crosby spoke. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] When we are talking about title deeds and land ownership, we should remember that the Bill will deal somewhat better with the great land anomalies we have and questions of ownership of land in respect of which it would be very difficult for the present so-called owners to produce title deeds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I do not want to deal with the froth of the Tory Party which took no part in Standing Committee and does not know too much about what happened.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to another hon. Member who is attending the Chamber on Third Reading as "froth" because he was not on the Standing Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that there has been any Ruling that the word is unparliamentary.

Mr. Iremonger: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to assist him in following the train of argument? We were not talking about title deeds. We asked about the price of land, and he would not answer. How will the Bill reduce the price of land?

Mr. Manuel: I said that I would come to that when dealing with local authority interests, which I know something about. I referred to title deeds simply because the hon. Member for Crosby referred to them in his opening speech.
I could not deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), because he has never made one on this legislation. I was dealing with the speech which had been made

and pointing out that the reference to title deeds would not hold good in connection with certain large areas of land in this country. We know quite well how the ancestors of the present owners secured it. Perhaps the less said about it the better. Much of this land was at one time in common ownership—church lands, for instance—and we shall, possibly, restore some of that land to an ownership a little wider than the present.

Mr. David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Manuel: I think not, because I have given way and——

Sir Douglas Glover: Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk) rose——

Mr. Manuel: Oh, all right.

Sir D. Glover: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, to get justice back again, we should return the land to the Anglo-Saxons?

Mr. Manuel: I am suggesting that this applies possibly to land presently owned because, to use a Scottish term of one period, someone was born on the wrong side of the blanket. The Bill will give us a better type of title deed, because we shall be able to take land into public ownership until it is required for development in the interests of industrial location or house building or for some other good reason.
There can be no doubt at all that responsible people and organisations have proved conclusively the need for more legislation to deal with land. We had the Uthwatt Committee in 1942 and the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. While there were criticisms of that Act, there were features of it which were good for the community. This was what disturbed right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite: certain privileges had been taken away from land-owning interests. The Conservative Party obtained power in 1951. In 1953, it abolished development charges. Next, it introduced the 1954 Town and Country Planning Act, which restored market values and gave free play to the market. It made thousands of houses built by local authorities much dearer than they ought to have been. This is why some of us were keen to get some legislation.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Mr. Walter Clegg (North Fylde) rose——

Mr. Manuel: I think that we have had enough interventions, and had enough argument in Committee. For a new Member, I feel that the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) has done extraordinarily well. I do not think that he should have too much publicity, for it might rebound on him at the next General Election. He should sit on his oars at present. I think that he will be all right. I have given way three or four times and I do not want to interrupt the sequence of my argument.
My right hon. Friend and I sincerely believe that we are doing something which will be good for Britain and in the national interest. We may be wrong, and it is for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell us where we are wrong, where our confidence is misplaced and where we are acting against the national interest and the interest of local authorities.
The history of this country is one of land inequalities. The great Liberal Governments of the past were associated with the demand for this reform time and again. I do not know where the Liberal Party stand today. I think that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) is the sole representative of the Liberal Party in the Chamber. I think that he will vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. If he intends to do that, I would remind him that on this question of land ownership we are trying to get through the Third Reading of a reform which was strongly advocated by the Liberal Party in its heyday, when it had the greatest leader that it has ever had—Lloyd George—who went very much further than we are trying to go today. He said, "The land belongs to the people". He wanted nationalisation.

Mr. Peter Bessell: If I am fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I hope to reply to the hon. Member's argument in detail. But when he speaks of a number of my colleagues now in the House he will do well to look at the number of his own colleagues present.

Mr. Manuel: That was not the burden of my argument. I was referring to what Lloyd George said for the Liberal Party. The representative of the Liberal Party

today repudiates the whole of Liberal Party history and beliefs in this connection. If he wants to debate this in his constituency, I will gladly debate it with him. He is certainly welcome to come to my constituency, although, as there are no Liberals there at present, it might be difficult to get an audience.
I feel that I may be taking up too much time, when many hon. and right hon. Members opposite are rightly keen to take part in the debate. I hope that some of my hon. Friends will take part in it, too. In this country, over the past few years we have had land speculation. Speculators—individuals and companies—have bought land not to develop it but to make a profit out of it. We all know this to be true. It has become a positive scandal that owner-occupiers and people wanting industrial locations in order to give employment to others in the area have been held to ransom before they could secure the land needed for these objectives.
I may say on behalf of myself and the Government that these matters were often discussed within our party circles. It is wrong for the hon. Member for Crosby to say that he meets people in the corridor, belonging to our party, who run down this legislation. When he makes these charges he should name them and their constituencies. It is unfair otherwise to level a charge. He has often met me in the Lobbies. Have I ever said anything remotely resembling what he suggested? I have stuck up for the Bill in every way I could. I believe in it and I do not think that my sincerity is doubted. Whether the hon. Member thinks that my "grey matter" is not what it should be is another matter. I have a right in this democracy to my point of view. I sincerely believe that the Bill will cure many inequalities.
Both the hon. Member for Crosby and the hon. Member for Ilford, North asked about present high land prices. In this way they admit that there are high prices and that there is speculation. Both questions presuppose that situation. They are trying to protect their friends, who speculate by retaining the high market prices. The Bill does not provide for market price or scarcity value. It provides for a levy. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames


stated clearly that he was not against the levy and that he accepted the principle of a levy. The question whether it should be 30 per cent. or some other figure was debatable, but he accepted that a levy was preferable to the situation to which we are subjected at present in this country.
In my younger days, I was a member of a local authority which was very keen to build houses to wipe out the soul-destroying conditions which we had in that seaside town on the Ayrshire coast, where I was privileged to be a member of the local authority for 15 years. I knew that the conditions were intolerable and that families should not be subjected to such living conditions. We, by building hundreds of houses in the land ward portion of the town, were encroaching on virgin ground behind it, not ground of very high agricultural value but ground which was made much more valuable than it had previously been—and which was not paying rates at all; agricultural land was completely derated at that time.
As we brought up services of gas, electricity, sewerage, this land became a goldmine in comparison with what it was worth before. Those owners had not spent a halfpenny piece upon it, and as the ground changed its value to that extent it became a very valuable holding indeed to the owners. The public purse through the medium of the rates had spent money on the building of houses and bringing up the services and in providing other amenities which are necessary for a properly planned community.
I want to ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite: do they really think that it was correct, right and justified that those owners should have creamed off to the extent they did the profit they did because of the community effort exerted by that local authority? And we had to get the land, to relieve those intolerable conditions I was talking about.
I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend——

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman has asked us a question, but he has not touched on the point about that land that under the Bill the owner would still be able to sell it at a price plus development value. It merely means some of

it would go in levy. It does not cheapen the price of the land.

Mr. Manuel: I am sorry to prolong this, but the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the main facet of this is that the price is not going into the private pocket. If the use value is £300 and he gets £2,000 there is a levy, between £300 and the £2,000, to be paid by the seller.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Still it does not make the land cheaper."] This is different from the 1947 Act, where it was the other way about. This is going into the public purse, and I for one much prefer that to its going into private pockets because of speculation in land necessary for development either for industry or for housing.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary on the way they have steered the Bill through the House. I hope that before we are very much older we shall see it on the Statute Book, when, I believe, there will be proved to the country and other side of the House the value it will have for the people of the country.

5.3 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: In spite of the agreeable exchange of congratulations with which this debate started I must confess that I find this a melancholy occasion. It is a melancholy occasion because after two bites at the cherry, one in the last Parliament and one in this, the Government are putting forward for adoption by the House today a Measure so complex, so obscure, so arbitrary, and in some respects so sinister in its ulterior intention.
The melancholy of the occasion is enhanced by the fact that the Government have here notably missed their opportunity. They had an opportunity to put forward a Measure which could have commanded, I believe, had it been an appropriate Measure, unanimous assent and, indeed, approbation. They could even have used the opportunity to do something—not, it is true, very much, because things had gone too far for that—but something to restore, at any rate a little, of the fallen credit of the Government and to brighten a little their tarnished image.
The Government could have brought forward a Measure which would have provided a basis for the reasonable


recovery by the community of betterment in land. They could have brought an appropriate solution to a matter on which Conservatives embarked as long ago as the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, which solution, unfortunately, was deferred for two decades by the impracticable and self-destroying provisions of the development charges under Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
Had the Government brought forward a constructive Measure on those lines, so far as I am concerned they would certainly have commanded my intellectual assent and, indeed, my congratulations. I agree with the basic principle that community-created value should accrue to the community. That does not mean the whole of the development value, because the community does not create the whole of the development value; but that proportion of the development value which is created by the community should accrue to the community. I said in the debate on the Second Reading in the last Parliament that
the optimum is as free a functioning as possible of the land market … together with a reasonable recovery to the community of the values which the community has created."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 742.]
That has always been my belief. But, unfortunately, the Government have notably missed their opportunity, or, I suppose it would be strictly more correct to say, they have deliberately turned then-backs on it. For partisan, doctrinaire reasons they have put forward a Measure which is bound to be difficult in interpretation, harsh in effect, and detrimental to that desirable development the encouragement of which is the main, positive function of good town planning.
The Bill, of course, bristles with matters on which it is susceptible to criticism in detail, but the Third Reading is not the time for that; on Third Reading one can only prefer the major points of indictment. There are, I think, two. First, the Bill is not concerned only with betterment. It also provides for a Land Commission which is quite unnecessary for the purpose of the levy, and it gives to that Land Commission powers of compulsory acquisition of almost unrestricted scope, and exercisable without proper

democratic safeguards. That is the first of the two main counts in the indictment against them.
The second is that the levy provisions are so complex, so devious and so far-reaching as to threaten the proper functioning of the market in land. Of course, on this second count I appreciate that legislation for the collection of betterment cannot be wholly simple. Of course it cannot.
The House will be aware that measures which are too complex and cumbersome inevitably collapse under their own weight. We have no further to look than to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, as an illustration of that proposition. Some of its provisions turned out to be wholly unworkable, and had to be repealed, without, so far as I can recall, any great expression of regret. This Bill is worse. If the Act of 1947 was a puzzle, this one will be a maze. I have had about twenty years' experience in this House of dealing with complex and difficult legislation, and longer still in my profession; and, against that background, I am reluctantly bound to say that in my view this Measure commands the dubious distinction of being the most difficult and the most obscure piece of legislation I have had to seek to construe.
It has had insufficient explanation and discussion. The right hon. Gentleman took credit for the fact that he had not guillotined the Bill. I must dissent from him as perhaps the only hon. Member present in the House who served on the Standing Committee considering the Town and Country Planning Bill, 1947, that there was any obstruction on that Bill. That Bill was guillotined. Whole passages of it were undiscussed by Parliament, and that is one of the reasons why it had to be repealed. The provisions were too complex and not fully canvassed by Parliament.
This Bill has not been sufficiently canvassed by Parliament, either. Discussions may have been relatively short, but one reason why they were short was because so many and such complex Amendments were put upon the Notice Paper with far too little time to prepare for informed discussion. It was little short of a Parliamentary scandal that that should have been so.
One reason why there has been so little explanation is perhaps lack of understanding by the right hon. Gentleman who put forward the Bill. We know on the authority of the Book of Proverbs that
Discretion shall preserve thee,
Understanding shall keep thee",
but the right hon. Gentleman has concentrated on the first of those maxims at the expense of the second. He has kept discreetly silent and reticent in the Report stage of the Bill, no doubt to cloak his lack of understanding of its provisions.
If the Government succeed in putting the Bill upon the Statute book, they will add gravely to the difficulties of the courts in its construction and to the difficulties of professional men—of counsel, solicitors, surveyors, architects, valuers, accountants and so on. They will do worse that that: they will harass the ordinary citizen, the small men of little property and limited resources, because the Act will affect all such. Just as much as those great companies to which hon. Members opposite are so fond of referring, they will be caught in the tangled skein of the provisions of the Act.
As to the other main count in the indictment against them, the Land Commission to be set up is not only unnecessary but injurious. It will be a bureaucratic body with such wide and arbitrary powers of compulsory acquisition that it has no proper place in a democratic society. In a sophisticated modern community, of course, there have to be powers of compulsory acquisition Everyone accepts that. But such powers should exist only for clearly defined statutory purposes and be exercisable by democratically responsible bodies. Neither of those concepts applies to the Land Commission. It will be democratic neither in its composition nor in its conduct.
The powers of compulsory acquisition which it enjoys will be incredibly wide. In so far as its powers of compulsory acquisition are directed to useful and appropriate ends, they are a mere duplicate of those already held by local planning authorities, with the difference that the planning authorities are properly, democratically constituted, electorally responsible bodies.

Mr. Manuel: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman must intervene, yes.

Mr. Manuel: I think that he omitted one important point. If powers of compulsory acquisition are exercised, it will be only where the local authority have already given planning permission for development.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: No, I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman must go back and read the provisions of the Bill much more carefully. I made this point on Report stage and I do not want to repeat it in detail. My language was carefully chosen. He will find that those powers are incredibly wide and almost unrestricted, or will be when they come to be applied.
In so far as they do not duplicate powers held by the local planning authorities, in my view they are unnecessary, excessive, dangerous and contrary both to private property and the public interest. Again, those powers can operate not only against large landowners and great corporations, but against the modest house holder and the ordinary citizen.
Not only will the powers be wide; they are powers that can be exercised in ways which are undemocratic and contrary to the rule of law. Clause 8 of the Bill lays down a so-called special procedure. It is not only a special procedure, but a harsh and arbitrary one whereby the Land Commission will be able to acquire compulsorily the property of the citizen—his house and his garden, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said—without any inquiry and without any right on his part to be heard.
This is a bad Bill. Instead of providing a solution to the great problem of land betterment, it is an aggravation and an affront. The House should condemn it now, as indubitably the country will condemn it hereafter.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Gardner: I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House on the Third Reading of what I regard as a most important major social reform. As I said in my maiden speech. I seem to have spent most of my time in the House listening to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), and I have no complaint about the courteous way in which he has dealt with this Measure on the opposite side of the


Standing Committee. However, I shall have something to say about the general tenor of the opposition to the Bill, both in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House.
In Committee and again this afternoon we have heard a great deal about the detailed problems associated with land legislation. Again, I have no complaint, because this was a very long and difficult Committee in the sense that we were dealing with difficult legal problems. As has been said by my right hon. Friend, any legislation dealing with land must be difficult in the sense that it involves a multitude of cross-rights and, therefore, legal problems arise from them.
There is no complaint that the Opposition have used their opportunities to the full to examine the Bill in great detail. What I complain about is that they are up to their old tricks in a political sense. We have heard time and time again about the problems of the owner-occupier, the problems of the little man with a little piece of land. We heard at great length in Standing Committee from the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) about the problems that might be associated with his orchard or his side-drive, in certain conditions.
That is fair enough. It is right that we should examine proposed legislation to see how it affects the small man. I shall have one or two questions on that to put to my right hon. Friend in a moment. However, the real purpose of the Opposition's attack on the Bill has nothing to do with that. The real purpose of their attack is because, if the powers contained in the Bill are used, they will take away once and for all the sacred right to do what one will with the land on which we must build our houses, schools and hospitals.
That is the real burden of their attack. I can understand why the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) feels melancholy. For the first time in this country we have legislation that does not simply soak up some of the increased development value, but gives the community the opportunity well in advance to acquire the land which it needs for planned developments. That is what makes right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite

so melancholy. That is the purpose of the attack that they have launched against the Bill, attempting to get Press publicity for the various points that they have raised, simply because they want to cloud the other main issue which is that the Bill will give the community an opportunity to get control of that which Lloyd George once described as having been given by God to the people. In due course, I hope that we shall hear from hon. Members on the Liberal benches.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that I am melancholy because the Bill provides the first opportunity for acquiring compulsorily in advance land which is needed for public purposes. That is not the reason for my melancholy, nor is what he says fact. When the debate is over, will he go back and quietly study Section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962?

Mr. Gardner: The fact is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are upset because this power is available. I am not an estate agent, or a solicitor, or a barrister, or a chartered surveyor, so, while the Bill was being discussed in Committee, I made it my business to discuss this Measure with local builders and developers in my constituency.
I heard a long and sorry record of the kind of land transactions which were taking place—this relates to what hon. Gentlemen opposite were saying about building levels—and preventing small builders from building houses. I heard about agents and property organisations buying up parcels of land, holding them for considerable periods of time, and then letting them off to certain builders at a certain price. This was the kind of problem faced by small builders.

Mr. Farr: Rubbish.

Mr. Gardner: The hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish". I am prepared to show him correspondence from local builders making these points.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is interested only in minerals and gravel.

Mr. Gardner: These local builders said time and again that they did not care whether it was the Land Commission acquiring land, or whether the basis


on which the land was available was leasehold or crownhold, as long as they had an opportunity to build houses, and as long as Parliament once and for all stopped people holding the country, the community, and even the building industry to some extent, to ransom.

Mr. Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the small builder, and in home ownership, I hope that he will join us in pressing the Minister to tell us exactly how the land will be allocated to small buildings. We still have not had an answer about how that will be done.

Mr. Gardner: If this turns out to be a problem, I shall not hesitate to discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend, but the builders about whom I am talking are not worried about who eventually owns the houses. If, for example, the Bill gave housing associations an opportunity to acquire land more cheaply on a crownhold basis, the small builders about whom I am talking would welcome it.
I have referred to the kind of problems which they have to face, and this is why I wanted an opportunity to say something in reply to the campaign which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have waged against the Bill in an effort to fog the basic issues.
I confess that I am a little worried about the possibility that some injustice may arise. When we are involved in compulsory acquisition, and when this is connected with planning decisions in any way, as we all know, having legislated to protect the community from the vicious and the greedy, and those who are prepared to operate as near to the law as possible, it is often necessary to spread the net so wide that we catch people whom we do not want to catch. We have seen this with clearance orders in particular. I ask my hon. Friend to say something about this aspect of the matter. I am not clear about whether, at some stage, it will be possible for this Commission to be considered by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Having attended 21 sittings of the Standing Committee, having served my political apprenticeship, albeit in silence most of the time, and having supported the Government in getting the Bill through the Committee, may I seriously and quite straightforwardly ask that the

compulsory purchase powers in the Bill be used? My fear is not the fear expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think that these powers are too limited. My fear is that they will not be used effectively. The powers of compulsory purchase laid down in the Bill will have the effect of reducing land prices simply because they will allow the community to get the land at a reasonable price instead of at market value.
If these powers are not used effectively we shall have wasted out time. We shall have a complicated piece of legislation which will cost a great deal to operate. If the powers are used effectively, the price that we will have to pay will be worth it. The time has come, both in this House, and in the country to realise that we live on a small island. We cannot, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, merely tinker about with free markets. The time has come to consider this problem as a whole, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure us that when the debate is concluded we shall have a weapon which we can use, and which will be used effectively, to bring down the price of land.
It may be that the Bill will give rise to some problems. It may be that in some respects we shall find mistakes which will have to be remedied, but this happens with all legislation. I am convinced that if, in the general working of an Act as it will be, the powers in this Measure are used effectively, the country will be grateful to us for the decision that we are to take this afternoon.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Walter Clegg: Having listened to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), I must say that I do not think he can have been listening to the same debate that I have been hearing, or indeed attending the same Committee, because it is clear from what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said that the betterment levy will not go entirely to the State.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are under the delusion that local authorities and the Commission will buy land at less than market value. As I understand, this is not so. The Commission will buy at market value and deduct a levy. This will not bring down the price of land to the man who wants to buy so that he can


build. This is what we put to the Government time and again, but we have never received a satisfactory answer.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Archie Manuel) warned me in Committee that he intended to annihilate me, but I survived that. Without his contribution from the back benches the Committee stage of the Bill would have been a dull and feeble affair indeed, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the effort which he has put into his remarks in support of the Government.
As a new Member, I should like to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said about the courtesy shown to us by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary in their treatment of our questions, and in the way this matter was dealt with upstairs.
Speaking again as a new Member, I found it remarkable that on Thursday night, and during the early hours of Friday morning, the only way in which we could get hon. Members from the back benches opposite to attend the debate was to call a Count, not once, but on several occasions. It does not surprise me that they do not comprehend the Clauses in the Bill, but I found it incomprehensible that they did not attend a debate which affected the property of their constituents, and the rights of these constituents as citizens.

Mr. Gardner: Would the hon. Member care to tell the House how many of his right hon. and hon. Friends were present at 2 a.m. during that night?

Mr. Clegg: The proportion was about four to one in favour of hon. Members on this side of the House. On many occasions the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) was the only Member on the Government back benches. Indeed, she was referred to on the following day as the "lady helper".

Mr. Grieve: Are not hon. Members opposite to be congratulated upon attending today in such numbers, for the first time in our debates on the Bill?

Mr. Clegg: Any contribution from a Member of the back benches opposite is a matter for congratulations—until one hears it.
The meaning of all these complex Clauses, subsections and Schedules is

clear, namely, that the Government and the Commission are given powers that they should not have, and which are to the great detriment of private citizens. This at least can be clearly spelt out, because after the second appointed day no land will be safe from the State—either in form of the Government or the Commission—and the so-called safeguards of inquiry contained in the Bill are nothing but a deliberate charade which, as Clause 6 makes quite clear, depends on the opinion of the Commission or the direction of the Minister. Against that, the private citizen and also the courts will struggle in vain.
Throughout the proceedings on the Bill hon. Members on this side of the House have tried to build into it safeguards for the rights of private citizens, but they have failed each time. The right hon. Member has refused to consider our proposals, in part on the ground that because the Commission is a public body it will act reasonably. If he believes that he will believe anything. The rights of private citizens should not rest on the belief of a Minister that some body which he appoints will act reasonably; they should rest clearly on the law introduced by the Bill itself.
Let me give two examples. First, when the Commission buys urban land, as it will, it is clear that it will take over many private dwelling-houses which are subject to the Rent Acts, and in which there will be many Rent Act protected tenants. We asked the Minister to write into the Bill, in respect of those tenants, the same safeguards that they had under the Rent Acts, but he refused to do so. The Parliamentary Secretary said that they had protection under the Rent Acts, and so they have, but it is nominal. He went on to say that the Commission will provide alternative accommodation.
But when the Bill becomes law the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary will not be read. When the Bill becomes law the Commission will look at its terms and not at what was said on Report. Things said in our debates are not legally binding, and if a right is not enshrined in the law it means nothing. To be effective it needs to be built into a Measure passed by this House and by the other place, and which receives the Royal Assent. No other right is worth while. It would certainly be a bad day


when the rights of the citizen depended on the obiter dicta of a Minister in Committee.
Our people do not yet know all the consequences that will arise from the operation of the Bill. Every freehold transaction, and almost every leasehold transaction, will have to be reported to the Land Commission—including all dwelling-house transactions. Our people do not realise that many private houses will be subject to the betterment levy. That fact is hidden in the massive verbiage of the Bill. People do not realise the great powers of patronage and preference that are being given to the Commission.
Again and again we have asked how the crownhold will be allocated to builders and how this system will reduce the price of land. The Government do not know. It sounds wonderful in theory, but in practice it will be very difficult to allocate this land fairly and to say which builder should have it, why, and on what terms. All this is still in the mists of the future.
The Government, by use of those powers and acting through the Commission, could change the whole of the freehold land of this country to crown-hold, although that is a very inferior tenure compared to freehold. This is part of the machine which the Government are building up—a machine which could be tyrannical. Looking at the right hon. Gentleman one could easily believe that the word "tyrannical" and he do not go together—but the right hon. Gentleman will not always be there to control the powers provided by the Bill. Some right hon. Gentlemen opposite would be more than capable of using those powers to achieve the ends which I have just set out.
The Bill is merely another step on the road to the absolute government of the country. We now have absolute control of wages, prices and dividends, and we are moving at an ever-increasing speed towards a situation in which the State allocates public money not as a right but by the discretion of Ministers and civil servants. The Bill is part of the machine that is being built up to achieve this end.
We are living in an age of double-talk where words seem to have lost all meaning. In such an age the instrument which

is being forged in the House today could be an instrument of tyranny, which some hon. Members opposite would not hesitate to use. It is ironical that the feudal system in this country started almost 900 years ago to the day, when Harold fell on the field of Hastings. It is ironical that, 900 years later, we should start galloping back as fast as we can to the feudal system. That is what the Bill means. It is going backwards.
For the reasons that I have urged upon the House I ask hon. Members to reject the Bill before any more harm is done.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. A. H. Macdonald: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee that dealt with the Bill, but it seems to have been a remarkable one. To a person outside the Committee seemed to go on sitting and sitting interminably, and yet I heard an hon. Member opposite say that the time for discussion was cut short. It is also remarkable that although the Bill seems to have been such a contentious matter hon. and right hon. Gentlemen should pay graceful compliments to each other about their conduct in Committee.
I was not a member of the Committee, as I have said, but I sat in the Chamber during the Report stage of the Bill and—this is in response to the remarks made by hon. Members opposite, especially by the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) a moment ago—one of the things that I noticed was that although the Bill was abhorrent in the eyes of the Opposition, after ten o'clock their abhorrence was rarely, if ever, pressed to a Division. The conclusion that I drew was that, apart from the handful of Members in the Chamber, nobody belonging to the party opposite was interested in discussing this vitally important matter.
There are two basic provisions in the Bill: first, the concept of a levy, and, secondly, the concept of the Land Commission being enabled to purchase land. As I understand the arguments of hon. Members opposite, they do not object in principle to the concept of the levy, though they take exception to some of the details. But I have heard them strongly criticising the idea that the Commission should be able to acquire property in the way proposed in the Bill. They referred


to unification of ownership as though this was undesirable.

Mr. Clegg: I think that the word "unification" came from the Minister. It led to some comment by Members on this side of the House. The originator of the word is sitting on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Macdonald: That is certainly true. The phrase was originally used by my right hon. Friend. But it was picked up by an hon. Member opposite. I regret that I cannot remember which hon. Member it was.
I have served, and still serve, as a member of a local authority. I think that there are hon. Members opposite who share that experience. If they are not still serving, they have served on local authorities. Their experience must be the same as mine. When a local authority engages on a major scheme of redevelopment—my council is currently engaged on no fewer than four schemes—the first thing which the council does is to seek to acquire the ownership of the land concerned in the redevelopment.
This Bill will assist in the process. It is the difficulty of acquiring land for redevelopment in major schemes which holds up schemes which are so necessary. Anybody who has read the Buchanan Report, or indeed any other report, relating to town planning must be well aware that it is the concept of the ownership of property which is the main stumbling block in the redevelopment of town centres, which is so necessary.
I do not see the Bill as one for the nationalisation of land. Whether that ought to be brought in is another question, but the Bill does not bring it in. I see it as a means of stopping the exorbitant profits which have been made in certain quarters from the necessity of acquiring land for redevelopment. How well I remember a case when I was a member of an authority which has been dissolved in the London local government reorganisation. The council of which I was a member wished to acquire a piece of land simply for open space as a back way into a park. The owner did not want to sell and applied for an alternative development certificate, or whatever the document is called, and it was determined that an alternative use

of the land might be for housing. The local council would have been obliged, if it had proceeded, to pay a housing price for it. In the end it decided not to proceed.
I regretted it at the time, but I could understand the arguments for not proceeding. It appeared to me that the law was merely a device to allow people to make unreasonably high profits from the sale of land. The authority of which I am a member recently sought to acquire land for housing redevelopment. It reached the point of contemplating a compulsory purchase order, but other considerations prevailed and it was decided not to proceed with the order. The land was acquired by a private developer. Now, five or six months later, this man seeks to sell us the land back. If the Bill had been law at that time it would have been possible for the Commission to apply the speedy process of acquiring the land, and the cost of the land to the local authority would have been a great deal cheaper.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have constantly referred during the Report stage and in this debate to the Bill as an infringement of the rights of individuals and the rights of ownership of property as though by simply saying that magic phrase that was a sufficient condemnation, as though the rights of property were absolute. But the rights of property cannot be regarded as absolute.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) referred to the feudal system which once prevailed in this country. I believe that I am right in saying that in those days the ownership of property was always accompanied by the concept that duties as well as rights attached to it. The time has come when we should consider the duties, or, if one likes to put it the other way round, the rights of the community in property ownership and not confine ourselves to the rights of property holders as though they were absolute and inviolate and not to be entrenched upon in any circumstances. The rights of the community—and the community has rights—require that we should have some Measure of this kind.
I never dissent—how could I—from the view of those who defend the rights of the individual. But there is a great clamour of voices all the time defending


the rights or the individual. How few, and how weak, are the voices of those who defend the rights of the community. This kind of Bill defends the rights of the community and makes practicable, reasonable redevelopment possible on civilised terms. I warmly welcome the Bill on these grounds.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and another hon. Member opposite are particularly anxious, it seems, to hear the Liberal Party's view on this Measure.
The Liberal Party has stated repeatedly over a period of about 60 years that it is of the opinion that no individual or group of individuals has the right to benefit by the possession of land which, of its nature, must belong to all the people. In short, in the words of David Lloyd George, God gave the land to the people. I think that nothing that I say today will be in contradiction of that statement.
We have always maintained, too, that any increase in the value of land or property consequent on the endeavours of the community should result in the profit from those endeavours reverting to the community and not to speculators or individuals who may have contributed little or nothing by their efforts.
On 31st January this year I set out in this Chamber the Liberal Party's objections to the Bill. Nothing which has transpired since, either in the changes which have taken place as a result of debate in the Standing Committee or in subsequent debates in the House, has caused me or my right hon. and hon. Friends to change our objections. I shall not go over them in detail today; indeed, it would be out of order for me to do so. In any event, I believe that it is important to keep our speeches short so that as many Members as possible have the opportunity to make their contributions.
Our two main objections remain. There is contained in the Bill an element of potential, if not actual, nationalisation. The powers given to the Land Commission are not only quite unnecessary; they serve no useful purpose. Anyone is entitled to feel a suspicion that the Bill is a back road to nationalisation. It

may well be that the spokesmen on the Government side who have reiterated that the Bill is not intended to nationalise the land are honest in their statements, but we have the authority of the Prime Minister, who in the last General Election campaign stated that the idea behind the Bill was to bring urban land into public ownership. It is no use his right hon. and hon. Friends denying that statement. Any denial must come from the Prime Minister himself.
Our second objection is that whilst we welcome wholeheartetdly a betterment levy, we believe, as we have stated repeatedly, that it is inappropriate to make a single charge. We believe that there should be a continuing benefit to the community by way of a site value tax. Anything short of this falls short of Liberal principles and Liberal objectives, which have been restated so often that I do not propose to burden the House by restating them again this afternoon.
In short, the Bill remains in concept a Socialist Measure and not a Radical one. It does not adequately meet the problems of land shortage, it does not go far enough to reduce the speculation in land and it does nothing at all to reduce the cost of land. These considerations are of the utmost importance. Clause 8 contains a ruthless disregard of the rights of the individual.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) made the point that it is more important to protect the rights of the community. I do not wholly dissent from that view, but I do not believe that it is necessary to endanger individual freedom and individual rights in order to protect the community. Indeed, the Bill could have been framed in a way which would have met both objectives and there would then have been no cause for complaint on any side of the House.
The Bill, after amendment and after long stages in Committee, remains for me a disappointing hotch-potch. The objectives have not been reached and in its administration as an Act of Parliament the Bill is likely to present many grave difficulties.
I should like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), who on 12th May said that we on this bench were at one with the


Government in their stated aims concerning the rights of every man in respect of land ownership and sharing the benefit of its increased value. Like my hon. Friend, however, I do not believe that the Bill fulfils those aims. We shall, therefore, vote against it again this evening.
In his opening speech this afternoon, the Minister used the word "empirical" and said that it had been stated that this was an empirical Measure. The right hon. Gentleman rejected that argument and went further and said that it was a final solution. I believe that the Bill represented an empirical decision and that it is nothing like the long-term solution which we had the right to expect from the Government.
Government supporters throughout the debate have shown a curious sensitiveness as to the attitude of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. I believe that that sensitiveness, which has been expressed and re-expressed so often, is evidence of their own sense of failure. The ghost of David Lloyd George most certainly hangs over the Government benches this afternoon.
If right hon. and hon. Members opposite take the trouble to read the speeches contained in the volumes of HANSARD in the year 1909 and compare the intentions of the Liberal Government of that day with the intentions contained in the Bill, they will find that the phantom of Lloyd George hangs over them with its finger pointed in condemnation.
We are asked to vote for the Bill. But even though we have asked for a betterment levy, for greater control of the use of the land in the years that have passed and we still demand these things, and we demand that there shall be a share to the community of the value resulting from community endeavour, this does not mean that because we have asked for an apple we are prepared to eat the rotten fruit which is contained in this legislation.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Hilton: Anybody who expected legislation on land at this late date to be other than complex., perhaps even containing mistakes, would be extremely naïve. Throughout history many Governments have attempted to tackle the land problem,

including the Liberal Government, who made a far more urgent attempt than many others to tackle it. That is, perhaps, why we are rather sensitive to the Liberal attitude today. The Liberal Party failed, as others have failed, in tackling the land problem and it is left to us to try to do it, even with a Measure which many of us find complex and about the future workings of which we might have misgivings. At least, we have got to try.
It is worth while looking to the background of why we must try to ensure that the community's stake in land is greater than it has been before. There has been criticism from the Opposition benches, and it has continued over the last few months, about the increased cost of housing. The comment has been made that the price of houses has risen more during the last year or so than in any comparable period. In a question-and-answer session with the Minister responsible, it was shown that it was not labour or materials which had led to the dramatic increase in price, and a great percentage of the increase must be attributed to increasing land charges.
Land charges have accelerated ever since the Conservative Government's Rent Act, 1957, liberated speculators so that they could make a greater profit out of the land. Anybody who studies the land question in the period immediately following 1957 can understand the need for introducing this legislation today.
Very few of our constituents realise that any addition to land prices means a dreadful burden round their necks by way of rent. A local authority house built today at an average price of about £2,300 may have an addition of between £6,500 and £7,000 in interest. The house becomes four or five times dearer than the actual building costs. My Government have tried to bring about legislation to curb these land charges, even if we all see complexities in the Bill and things that we might rather not have.
The challenge before the whole House is whether to leave the land question entirely alone in the situation which it has reached simply because any legislation to deal with the subject must contain complexities. If a Conservative Government had attempted to do this, they would have run into the same difficulties


in trying to introduce legislation. That is clear and, I think, is accepted.
There are many different interests involved in this legislation. One of them which has been bandied about from one back bench to the other is the interest of the small builder. I presume that those on the benches opposite claim to represent the small builder. They have one builder among them, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). The only way that one could describe him as a small builder is in the physical aspect, certainly not the financial aspect. The small builder is not represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Representations on behalf of the small builder have been made to the Minister and I was asked by the Federation of Master Builders to make those representations to my right hon. Friend; certainly a quaint position in which to find myself. The small builder is not represented by the national organisation to which the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe is affiliated.
The fears of the small builders were that if there was no control over land prices—no national element at all in influencing where land was to go—they would lose out in the long run. Their livelihood depends on getting sufficient land on which to build and they expressed fear that they would lose out to the Laings, the McAlpines and other big builders with whom they are unable to complete financially for the purchase of land. A delegation of small builders therefore, came to see me and they asked for an assurance that the Commission would be able to purchase and redistribute land so that the small builder could compete with the larger builder. They received some assurances and this has meant that their opposition to the Bill has at least been mitigated, for they see that this legislation will be to their long-term interests.
Apart from the complexities of the Bill, we must remember that the ownership of land presents a problem which must be tackled sooner or later. I accept the complexities of the Measure. We may make mistakes but at least, in making those mistakes, we are trying to do something to influence land prices for the ultimate benefit of the community.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) drew a contrast between what he called the rights of the community and the rights of the individual and gave the House to understand that it was time that the rights of the community were considered perhaps in preference to the rights of the individual. I acknowledge no such dichotomy between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community. The community is nothing but the sum of the individuals who compose it and if one individual suffers unjustly in his rights, the whole is injured thereby. If, as will be the case under the Bill, many thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of individuals suffer unjustly in their rights, then the community will suffer irreparable damage.
It would be ingenuous indeed in rising at this late stage, remembering that I did not have the honour of being a member of the Standing Committee, if I were to think that I could make any original contribution to the discussion. My hon. and right hon. Friends have time and again—in Committee, on Report and today—made many points against this complex, ill-thought-out and, in many ways, thoroughly unjust piece of legislation. I rise at this late stage of the Bill only because I do not yet believe that there has gone out to the country from the House the real message of the appalling damage which the individual is liable to suffer by the provisions of the Measure which affect his property rights.
At the very beginning, Clause 1, which we debated extensively on Report, gives the Minister power to give directions—not to make regulations, but to direct—to the Commission. Clause 6 gives the Commission powers of compulsory purchase and, by Clause 8 and Schedule 2, the only protection which the law now gives to the subject against the overwhelming power of bureaucracy is wholly taken away.
The individual may wake up one morning to find that the Commission, acting under directions from the Minister, has taken over his house, garden or plot of land; and I do not care what size it is, since an injustice done to the great and rich is equally an injustice. But this is an injustice which may be suffered equally by the poor owner, who may own a small plot of land which the hon. Member for


Chislehurst thinks might be in the way of a road which his local authority wishes to build. The individual may wake up to find his property vested in the Land Commission, that he has no public inquiry open to him or power of appeal to the Minister or anyone else to protect his rights.
It is a sad and sorry day for this country when legislation of this kind is passed. The day is perhaps long since past when an Englishman or Scotsman could say with pride that his house was his castle. Nowadays many individuals, under powers given by Parliament, have the right to enter his castle and see what is going on inside. If Parliament passes this Bill the castle will no longer be a castle but a house of cards, to be puffed down by the puff of the Minister whenever the right hon. Gentleman may so desire, acting through the Land Commission.
It is no use saying that this legislation is designed to deal with problems involved in the taking over of great estates, and trying to excuse it in that way. The Measure affects every individual who has a plot of land or is ever likely to acquire one. I will not go into the question of the levy and the criticisms of that. Suffice to say at this stage that this is an absolute jungle. Last week on Report my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) paid hon. Members who are lawyers the compliment of saying that only we could understand the Bill. It was a wholly undeserved compliment, for I believe that there are parts of the Bill which pass all human understanding.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) said that he was not a surveyor, estate agent, barrister or solicitor. Perhaps that is a pity for him, because if anybody will do well out of this legislation it is the gentlemen in those professions. I say that and at once declare an interest, because the work which will be given to specialists to protect the rights of the individual and try to interpret it and explain its meaning to the courts will provide a living for all those professions for so long as this legislation is on the Statute Book. I only pray that when we return to power we will sweep it into the dustbin of defunct, unjust and unnecessary legislation where it belongs.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Eric Moonman: The imagery created by members of the Opposition has certainly reached the all-time low. I was very troubled in Committee by some of their references, but the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Greave) has raised images of cards falling, and so on, which suggests that if the Opposition are really serious about their rôle as an Opposition, and take this idea of the "great divide" seriously, they should employ either a public relations expert to give good images or make sure that they have some co-ordination in what they say. Personally, I think that the "great divide" came unstuck last Friday morning in the debate on new towns, which is a related subject, but some of the things we have heard from hon. Members opposite suggests that there is no Opposition at all.
What has also been of interest has been the question of the absolute rights. This is an area of discussion which troubles the Opposition. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) spoke of the State assuming an interest in wages and prices, and now in land. Is this so regrettable? For reasons that some of my hon. Friends have given, we are saying, "Yes, we want the State to be interested in these matters. We want the State to be concerned with them, because we have had a rather sordid experience of several hundred years of a capitalist system that has not proved itself." It is because we feel that there is a better way of acquiring land, of running our society, that we have this Bill, and will have many other Bills as well, which will become Acts of Parliament, as sure as night follows day. The Opposition must prepare a much better brief if they want to convince Government supporters that we are likely to introduce the wrong Bills.
The other subject that has been discussed has been that of the individual and the community interest. I agree that the two are closely related, but, at the same time, we have seen examples of individual abuse which have affected the community interest. It is extremely unfair, even at this late stage of the Bill, for hon. Members to make rather pious statements about the value of individual initiative. One might have heard that sort of speech in this House last century, but to have it


now, when we have sufficient evidence of how individuals can abuse their power, is quite clearly very misleading. It is true that individual and community interests are related, but it is for the Land Commission to make sure that the community does not lose out.
It has been said that this Bill means nationalisation by the backdoor. I would hope that it was nationalisation by the front door because, quite clearly, what we hope is that there will be no individual, group or regional variation, but a common pattern of overall service, and this is one of the basic aims of nationalisation.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who has now left the Chamber, said that he would vote against the Bill tonight. That is very sad, because many Liberal statements on housing, on land and on new towns suggest that the Liberals believe in some form of co-ordination which, again, is the basic point of this debate. Unfortunately, we now see a repetition of the circumstances of last Friday, when we discussed new towns and there was no representative of the Parliamentary Liberal Party present on such a very important issue of land and land co-ordination. I regret that the hon. Member is not now present. If the Parliamentary Liberal Party really does believe in what its representatives have written in the past, if they do not want to see individual abuse of land but some co-ordination, some planning, they should vote tonight quite differently from the hon. Gentleman's expressed intention.
The heart of the Opposition's case was reflected in Committee by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) when he said that the Government are
… setting up a body of Commissioners with these privileges merely so that they can acquire and sell property. Local authorities have carried on this job for years and years without these privileges, and have done it perfectly well without any difficulty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 16th June, 1966; c. 60.]
The main point here is that the Opposition are saying, in effect, that they want to restore this facility and privilege to local authorities, but I believe that sufficient has been said from this side, and also by some hon. Members opposite, to show that local authorities have just not had the organisation, the facilities, the power.
The heart of the Opposition case—and I challenge the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) to disagree with this—is that they want to see local authorities continue to maintain and regulate land. We say that that is not enough; that we must have a national organisation to deal not only with the national position but with the regional position as well. If the Opposition had taken the trouble to present their case much more fluently on the lines suggested in the paragraph to which I have referred, the subject could have been debated much more vigorously and realistically, although I do not accept the idea behind what the hon. Gentleman said.
What we have had has been a very unfortunate line of attack by the Opposition, a line concentrated at one extreme on images, packs of cards, and the like, or, at the other, concerned with the authority given to individual members of the Commission. Hon. Members who served in the Committee will remember the extraordinary references made by one hon. Gentleman to the little man with dark glasses—or was it the dark man with the little glasses?—who was to be a super-authority in deciding what was to be done. That is nonsense, and it is a reflection of the lack of intellectual basis on the other side that hon. Gentlemen have to resort to that sort of imagery.
We have not heard their case sufficiently since 16th June last, but we have a right, and the country has a right, to hear what the Opposition really believe to be the value of the Land Commission. It cannot be confined to these rather sordid images but, having heard this, we must also recall that the case has been well put by the Government of the value and extent of the Land Commission's powers. To shy away from the value of the Land Commission is to fail to understand the problems with which local authorities have had to deal in the last 20 years.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: To night, the House is being asked to give the Third Reading to a Measure the language of which is as obscure as its purpose is pernicious. Even if hon. Members opposite think that they can understand and approve that purpose, they


ought at least to agree with their colleague the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) who, last Wednesday, demanded that the Bill should be withdrawn, and redrafted in language that people can understand. We all applauded his courage in coming into the Division Lobby with us simply to protest at the obscurity of the language in the Bill Everyone who has had the misfortune to read the Bill must agree that it comes among the world's top 10 worst-drafted statutes. I described this as pop art, with the print just thrown at the paper; I should have called it, of course, pop law, because it is just as sensible read upside down or any way.
The Government will be most unwise if they do not listen to the strictures passed this afternoon by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who speaks with as much authority on these matters as anyone in the country. They might listen also to the views expressed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), who says, and none of us is ashamed to admit it, that no lawyer can understand the Bill. Hon. Members opposite need not be ashamed therefore, if they do their duty as Members of the House by refusing to give the Third Reading to a Measure of which, if they are honest, they must admit they cannot understand a word.
I think that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and others of my hon. Friends who have apprehended, so far as may be possible, the incomprehensible and have diligently sought in Committee and in the House to bring some order out of chaos. It is not their fault if, on this occasion, they cannot be congratulated on making a bad Bill better; it remains bad through and through.
On the occasion of the Third Reading of the Bill I would wish to say something nice about the Ministers who have been responsible for piloting such an intricate Measure through the House. All I can say, I am afraid, is that the Ministers who have been—not piloting it, but trying to follow it through Committee and Report stages—have done their best. Now, of course, they have worked themselves out of a job. But although they are redundant they can look forward to being

redeployed. If they cannot get knighthoods, at least they can look forward to jobs in the largest Government in the world—and that, as the Prime Minister knows, is a much more tangible political honour.
Of course, no one can see those two benevolent-looking gentlemen opposite me as two red devils. The mantles of Wormwood and Screwtape fit very uneasily on their shoulders, but they are there all the same. I think that they can be described as angels only in so far as they have kept their feet firmly in the air through month after month in Committee. They have been courteously incoherent through Clause after Clause and Schedule after Schedule.
On the 140 Amendments which they put down for Report the Minister complained that there had not been such a long discussion as there was on the 1947 Act, but there is a limit to the time that we can spend discussing gibberish. At least, parts of the 1947 Act had something to commend them.

Mr. Willey: I made the point that the Closure had never been moved and that no one could complain that there had not been time for adequate discussion.

Mr. Rippon: I gather that the Minister is congratulating himself on the speed with which he got this intricate Measure through the House. For people outside who try to understand the Bill it will be nether heaven nor hell, but just purgatory. For those who have to suffer under it, it will bring only trouble and hardship.
Anyone who wants to understand the full horror of the Bill and how it will affect the ordinary individual and practitioner ought to read the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) on 26th October, as reported in columns 1067 to 1071. Perhaps a public-spirited journal or periodical will print it in full, because it needs to be read in full to understand how complex and difficult this Measure is.
Support for the Bill has been sustained by the party opposite only because of the illusion—and it is only an illusion—that in spite of its complexities it will fulfil what various hon. Members


opposite have described as the laudable aims of making land cheaper and more readily available and helping the community to share in betterment value which they have helped to create. But in fact the Bill is totally irrelevant to the attainment of these objectives. Indeed, it is bound to hamper them because of the needless duplication of powers and machinery which already exist. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East pointed out what these powers are and how they can be used already.
There is no necessary connection between the establishment of the Land Commission and the collection of betterment levy. The levy will not be used to reduce the cost of land, as some hon. Members opposite seem to think. It will go straight to the Exchequer, not even to the local authorities. The incredibly intricate and expensive process of collecting it will add to the cost of land. As we have said from the outset, whatever view is taken of a betterment levy of some sort, it would save an immense amount of time and trouble if the Capital Gains Tax were allowed to cover the whole field.
It is significant that the Minister has repeatedly refused, on Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report, to give any indication of the net yield of the levy, that is, after regard is had to the loss to the Exchequer of Capital Gains Tax, Corporation Tax and other taxes on these various transactions. That is wholly wrong in what virtually is a taxation Statute. I know that the Minister said that the levy is not a tax, but that will mean nothing to the person who has to pay. As the Minister told us this afternoon, what we shall have will be an initial rate of 40 per cent. and then by Order it can be increased first to 45 per cent. and then to 50 per cent.; and we do not know how much thereafter. Whatever view we take of the amount of the levy, it should be fixed in the Bill so that people will know where they stand.
While betterment levy may not make any difference in money terms to the sort of people who pay Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax now—that is, to the big landowner and developer—it will

mean much to many people covered by this Bill. It will mean much to every owner of a house, an office, a shop, a farm, a factory, a piece of land. All those people the vast majority of whom are today exempted from taxation of this kind will be affected, and they include 7 million owner-occupiers, the investment lands of charities and housing associations, and even the farmer who reluctantly grants a wayleave to the electricity authority to put up a pylon on his land and has a small annual payment in compensation for the nuisance.
How many hon. Members opposite, much less members of the public, realise that if the Bill becomes law after 1st March next year every single sale of land, most tenancies, every grant of an easement, every release of a restricted covenant, will have to be notified to the Land Commission? The fact that there are estimated to be 2 million or 2½ million "notifiable acts or events" occurring every year shows not only how arbitrary the assessment of the levy is liable to be, but also how many people will be brought within the scope of this iniquitous Commission's grasp.
It is an utter illusion to imagine that only 2,000 additional civil servants and £4 million a year in administrative costs—the Minister's present guess—will be a sufficient provision for the operation of this Measure. That is quite apart from the millions of man hours which will be wasted. I do not mind so much about the lawyers who will get paid for it, although it is a waste, but there will be the waste for valuers, estate agents and others who will have to devote hours to clearing up the mess. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull, said that they may be paid, but one thing is certain, they will not be happy in their work.
One of the most disturbing features of the Bill for the ordinary citizen is that the Land Commission is given up to six years to serve a notice of assessment for levy. That shows that the Minister understands even now that no one will be able to cope with the flood of transactions which will have to be notified. Even if the levy is assessed and paid, the Land Commission may make a further assessment at any time within the six-year period. It is intolerable that there is no way for the ordinary citizen to get a


notification within a shorter period. All that time he will have an absolutely unquantified debt over his head.
There is another factor. In the case of a tenancy or easement, like the farmer and the granting of a wayleave for a pylon, the levy is payable as a capital sum even before rent or profit is received. Tax levied in advance of profit made, or earnings is a bad provision. Every time the provisions contained in the Bill will hit the little man hardest of all because he has no means of financing these transactions and waiting long periods of time. It is a Bill which in Swift's definition, clearly falls under the description.
Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through",
We on this side of the House deeply regret that the Government have repeatedly rejected our Amendments to remove owner-occupiers of small houses and minor transactions under £5,000 of a reasonable sum from the scope of the Bill, together with charities and other non-profit-making bodies such as housing associations. It must be understood that the Bill taxes a whole series of people who are exempted under our present taxation laws, and rightly exempted, from provisions of this kind.
We also strongly object to the extensive discretion which the Bill gives both to the Minister and the Commission on fundamental matters, such as how or why, or even if, the levy shall be paid. Such powers are manifestly open to abuse and are quite contrary to the principles of taxation which have been established in this country for centuries. We are saying that the House should not approve the imposition of a levy whose incidence will be widespread, arbitrary and uncertain, and the net yield value of which, when all the work is done, may well prove negligible.
How will the rest of the Bill make more land available for development? Here again, hon. Members have pointed out time and time again that there is no necessary connection between the powers of acquisition given to the Commission and those already possessed by local authorities. One hon. Member asked whether I believed in local authorities. I do. I said that I believed they could make far better use of £45 million to £75 million

provided under the Bill for the Land Commission.
We have to look beyond the question of betterment, price and the availability of land to find the real purpose of the Bill. It is a dangerous and sinister purpose which will strike at the very roots of our free society. Before the second appointed day—we do not know when the mysterious second appointed day will be—the powers of acquisition of the Commission do little more than repeat those which are to be found in existing Statutes. After the second appointed day, these powers are breathtaking in their enormity. The Commission will be given power to acquire any land which, in its opinion, is suitable for material development and it can develop it itself. In effect, the Bill enables every piece of land and property in the country to be brought into public ownership on the grounds that it is suitable for development, redevelopment, or a change of use. The Commission's description is virtually unchallengeable in the courts.
There is no requirement that the Land Commission must be satisfied that the land is required for development within any period, however long. That is the real purpose of the Bill. That is why the Prime Minister appears as one of the sponsors of the Bill. It is a rather unusual procedure and it is not the only ground of objection to the Bill. It was the Prime Minister himself who said at Chiswick on 17th March this year that the Bill will
take urban land on which planning permission has been granted into public ownership.
No doubt agricultural land will come later.
The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) was frank and said that we should not call it creeping nationalisation or nationalisation by the back door, that it was nationalisation by the front door and that it is what we wanted. The hon. Member is a little inexperienced, otherwise he would have wrapped it up. He must learn, like the Prime Minister, to be subtle and sinuous of discourse. Do not say that it is nationalisation by the front door, although that is, of course, what it is.
The alleged safeguard which the Minister referred to, that there must be planning permission to say that land is suitable for material development, is not a safeguard. The Commission can obtain


planning permission or it can amend the development plan and go to its own Minister of Housing and Local Government to get it. After the second appointed day, the Commission is not required to give any reason for acquisition. It is not required to use the land for the purpose for which it acquired it. It is not obliged to return it to the owner if it finds that it does not need it.
As my hon. Friends pointed out, it can acquire land by the expedited procedure which is absolutely unprecedented in peace time. Under this procedure all land, including dwelling-houses, can be acquired without a public inquiry, without even the right of representation to the Minister, simply by sticking a notice on the land or house. Under the Bill the Commission is able to acquire or enter upon the land without the owner having any knowledge of the acquisition, without having any opportunity to object, without knowing whether he will receive compensation. He will be a little worried about this, because although the Minister says it is market value, some of his hon. Friends do not understand that. Many people outside know hon. Members opposite do not want to pay market value at all. This is a matter of alarm.
I do not know why hon. Members are afraid of market value. It is very much better. The Minister should talk to the Minister of Public Building and Works and see how many millions of pounds of land and office accommodation is acquired without any compulsory purchase at all. I know. When I was at the Ministry for two years we had no need to resort to compulsory purchase because we were willing to pay the free market price, and if you are willing to do that then people are willing to negotiate on sensible terms, and by so doing you save time and money.
It is significant that the powers contained in the Bill are not limited to cases where there is a degree of urgency. It has always been understood that there might be some expedited procedure during war time or in case of emergency, but these powers can be introduced by the Minister as the normal procedure. Why should we have an expedited procedure when the whole purpose of the Land Commission is to buy land in advance of requirements?
These are pernicious powers to give to any Government and we will not support the Bill. They represent the most comprehensive attack that could be made on freehold rights and the occupation of property. What are we to have in place of freehold? We are to have something called "crownhold". It sounds a very respectable title. There is the bait that it can be offered on concessionary terms, but I have a feeling that those terms will be rather worse than those which people would have to pay for freehold under a Conservative Government.
There is no guidance in the Bill on the basis of concession. Everything, here as elsewhere, is at the discretion of the Commission. Restrictive covenants, the limitation on the tenure to the life of the house, the right of the Commission to repossess, make crownhold no better than tenancy at the will of the Commission. It is not as good, in practical terms, as the much maligned long lease. Crownhold will be feudal in substance as well as in name, with the vassal subservient to the ever growing power of the Socialist State. That is the real purpose of the Bill. It is an infamous Bill. We will oppose it tonight and we will oppose it in the country. If, in spite of all our efforts, it becomes law, we will pledge ourselves to repeal it at the earliest opportunity.

6.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): Before the House gives its decision to the Third Reading of this important Measure, I hope that I may be able to help, as I have tried to do through all our long discussions, on some of the significant issues, apart from those of purely political prejudice which I do not think at this stage I would be in order to discuss; and in any case would not be of help to the House.
I turn, first, to the charges about the Bill's complexity. Fundamentally, it is a criticism which should be directed at the intricacies of the English land law. As I reminded the House some time ago, Oliver Cromwell referred to the laws of property as being "a tortuous and ungodly jumble". For 600 years the system added layer upon layer of confusion and contradiction to justify Joshua William's remark at the end of the nineteenth century that much of our land law was worthless and


a good deal of it positively harmful. Although we had a great series of changes in the J 925 legislation, much still remains to be done.
In connection with the problem we are discussing tonight and the Bill itself, the record of the late Administration has not been very helpful. They not only repealed by way of the 1953 Act, Part VII of the 1947 Act, but they followed it by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954, which contained 72 Sections and eight Schedules. Not content with that, we had the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959, which I think is the main cause of much of the scandal of ever-spiralling land prices. That had 59 Sections and 10 Schedules.
The former Administration were not content with that. They introduced the Land Compensation Act, 1961, with 42 Sections——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Bill. We are on Third Reading.

Mr. Skeffington: I am fully aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to show that the Bill was not so unreasonable in relation to the provisions which have already been made. Indeed, I take the view that my right hon. Friend the Minister very much deserves the plaudits of the House.
Despite the length of the Bill, and, in certain parts, its difficult nature, particularly the part dealing with valuation, he never had to move the Closure. This was very different from what happened on the Pipe-Lines Bill in 1962, when whole Clauses were never discussed, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
The Bill deals with a subject which is complex. We all realise that. However, all our work will be very much easier on future occasions when there can be a greater simplification of land law as a whole, as is now beginning to take place elsewhere.
Nevertheless, I have been agreeably surprised at the considerable mastery of considerable parts of the Bill, which has been amply demonstrated by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and some of his hon. Friends. Indeed, it will not be long before we see "Page on the Land Commission". I hope it will not be too expensive. At any rate, a

number of hon. Members have grasped the essential principles of the betterment levy and its application.
In relation to the charges which have been made—some of them grotesque exaggeration—it should be realised that, because there are so many interests involved—English law provides for those interests—if an attempt is made to be fair and to legislate to cover the rights of all individuals, the Bill is bound to be long. It could have been much shorter if we were doing what the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) suggested, namely, riding roughshod over individuals. Then the Bill could certainly have been much shorter. Ten of the Schedules deal with betterment and provide various reliefs for those who will have to pay it. This should win some gratitude for the Government rather than criticism.
Levy is dealt with by means of the Schedules so that, as far as possible, it is a charge upon the betterment value for those who actually raise it and not upon those who are to carry out that objective. If that objective is sought, the necessary steps must be taken. Having regard to the other legislation to which I have referred in passing, I think that, on the whole, the Bill is not nearly so complicated as has been suggested.
My right hon. Friend mentioned at various stages—I repeat it—that, just as the Department has given all the help that it can and will continue to do so, when the Measure passes through the other place in due course, as I hope it will, there will probably be three main series of memoranda to help. There will, first, be a general memorandum for the public, explaining the main functions of the Commission and the collection of betterment levy. There will then be a further explanation of a more technical character for the professional bodies—the chartered societies and others—which have to advise their clients. Finally, there will be a full explanatory memorandum, in question and answer form, covering the whole range of the transaction. I am sure that these will be helpful.
The second criticism of the Bill centres around the creation of the Commission itself. I do not agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) about Part


VII of the 1947 Act, but we should both be out of order if we discussed that point now. The case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others have put is that even accepting the principle of the levy, as he does—I am glad that he does—why do we need all the other apparatus to enforce it?
A moment's reflection answers this question. I believe that there were many on both sides of the House who hoped at the time that the 1947 Act would be a permanent solution, because it is not in anyone's interest to keep on having these cataclystic changes in land law. All those who hoped that the 1947 Act would be a success and who were familiar with its working know that its weakness lay in the fact that the old Central Land Board's powers of acquisition and compulsory purchase were uncertain.
In the result, there were very few cases in which the Board ever could proceed to compulsory purchase. There was great uncertainty. It was followed towards the end of 1950–51 by a wholesale withdrawal of land from the market to escape development charge.
This was very much in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner), who asked whether my right hon. Friend the Minister intends to use the powers contained in Clause 8. If there is any danger that the just and proper development of the community will be in any way prejudiced by what I might call the wholesale withdrawal of land, my right hon. Friend will have no hesitation in using his powers, and I am perfectly certain that he would be supported by the public if he used them.
Since we are told repeatedly, though without very much evidence, that everybody believes in a whole range of professional and other people take the view that the Commission is unnecessary, I must refer to the speech made on 13th January by a former very respected colleague of all of us, Sir Colin Thoraton-Kemsley, who is a chartered surveyor in private practice. In answering the very point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, Sir Colin said this:
I confess to having been surprised that a public opinion which has swallowed the camel of a betterment levy is now straining at the

gnat of a Land Commission, which I regard as a technical question concerning the right machinery for the job rather than one involving matters of principle.
On that level, once the levy is imposed, one must as a realist "—
no right hon. or hon. Member opposite has presented this case in argument this afternoon—
face the possibility that some owners will hold back land hoping for the recission of the levy or its replacement by something less onerous. It follows that there must be a body possessing compulsory powers ready to step in and acquire land which is required for public purposes. Some may ask why should not local authorities do this?
My answer would be "—
it is the answer of the Government, too—
that powers of compulsory purchase are held by over 1,400 local authorities in England and Wales, and by 50 to 60 in Scotland, and these have varying resources and widely differing views of their responsibilities. The principles of compulsory acquisition should be generally understood and applied uniformly throughout the country and this can best be insured by the intervention of a national body.
The Director of the Town and Country Planning Association reinforced that point of view in his paper to the conference of the Association.

Mr. Graham Page: Does the Parliamentary Secretary hold the view which was expressed there, that powers of compulsory purchase should be
applied uniformly throughout the country"?
Does that mean that the Commission becomes a monopoly throughout the whole country and that the powers of local authorities are taken away?

Mr. Skeffington: No. As the hon. Member knows, powers of compulsory acquisition for purchases within their own areas will, if local authorities desire to continue to use them, continue. But in a reinforcement of the levy proposals then public, and certainly compulsory, acquisition by a centralised body is necessary and must be uniformly applied. That is what I said. That is what I repeat after the intervention.
As was to be expected, the Opposition suggested that the betterment proposals in Part III will affect—here we had inspiration and suggestion of the Fat Boy of Peckham kind—7 million owner-occupiers. Indeed, Dr. Denmam went a


good deal further in an article in The Times on 30th September when he suggested that every tenant would be affected. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know that, unless a tenant holds for more than seven years, he is excluded by Clauses 29 and 30. So that was a non-starter to begin with.
It is, of course, true that copies of the return which have now to be made in any event to the Stamp Duty Office under the Finance Act, 1931, when land or an interest in land is sold or assigned, will be seen by the Land Commission as a result of Schedules 10 and 11. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, in a display of Buzfuzian forensic cross-examination on 26th October, wanted to know, as reported in c. 1112 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, whether the number would be 6 million or 7 million who would be affected by Clause 7. My right hon. Friend said then that the vast majority of such owner-occupied houses would be unaffected.
To put the matter mathematically, at the outside something less than 10 per cent. of the cases would be likely to attract attention. Quite a number of these would not pay levy because of the expectation that 10 per cent. could be added to the value and still escape the levy. Something of that order might be expected because the prospects of future development might make levy payable. This is far from the stupid story which has been put about that all these individual tenants and occupiers will be affected by the levy. I am glad that it is now on the record, and I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. Rippon: If so few people will be affected, why will not the Government accept the Opposition's suggestion that all these people should be exempted from the levy as they are from the Capital Gains Tax?

Mr. Skeffington: If we had had the great benefit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's presence on the Standing Committee he would have known the practical reasons for it.
My right hon. Friend has been very forthcoming in accepting any practical, technical and competent Amendments which have been moved by the other side. But the fact is that we have looked at this matter extremely carefully, and I assure the House that had it been possible

to put a figure of that kind on exemptions we would have done so. But it has not been possible. Until one sees the details of the assignment or of the sale of interest, one does not know what the prospective development value will be and whether levy will be chargeable. The whole of the calculations in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said were wrong by about 100 per cent. He mentioned a figure of 2 million whereas it is much more likely to be 1 million.
I think that it is very important to realise that the Commission set up under Part I of the Bill and its powers set out under Part II have an even more positive and important side in land policy as well as being merely a reserve power in connection with the imposition of the betterment levy. It is important to realise, also, that what we are doing is adopting the deliberate conclusions of practically all the professional and scientific opinion which is not hopelessly politically prejudiced, that there is a need for a centralised body to do the positive side of this work, quite apart from giving the reserve powers in connection with the levy itself.
This opinion was expressed in Chapter V of Uthwatt, which said that there should be a central planning authority with units connected with extensive compulsory purchase powers. The Civic Trust put forward the point of view—and its president's views are not generally shared by this side of the House—in "Rebuilding City Centres", that there should be a land finance corporation which would pay for and hold all land compulsorily acquired for the purposes of comprehensive redevelopment.
It would resell this land to local authorities and private enterprise for redevelopment in accordance with three-dimensional schemes prepared or approved by the local authorities. We have considerably adopted that proposal. The Architects' Journal, in an editorial on 9th February this year, put the case for a centralised body that can do this positive work in connection with comprehensive development.
It is important that the public outside as well as hon. Members opposite should know these facts. There is a considerable body of technical opinion which believes that, apart from the question of the levy


and having a reserve power to see that the levy does not lead to a withholding of land, there is a positive and important rôle to play without which we shall not get the comprehensive urban development which is essential if we are to rebuild many of our old cities. I think that this is very good testimony that our late colleague, Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley——

Mr. Rippon: Former colleague.

Mr. Skeffington: Former. I do not mind how the Opposition care to refer to him. He is certainly very much alive in my mind. His independent scientific testimony is worth quoting. After making a number of suggestions as to how the Land Commission could work, he expressed the hope that it would make the fullest use of the valuation departments and would proceed pragmatically. It should proceed wherever possible by agreement and not by compulsory purchase. He also said something which I would commend to the hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve), because I thought that he concluded his speech with a rather intemperate gesture.
Sir Colin said:
If these things are done, and if those who are opposed to the idea of a central land purchasing and holding body resolved to give this particular one a fair chance, I believe that the Commission could become an accepted feature of our mixed economy and that our descendants will come to say of it not 'Why did they allow it?' but 'How did they contrive to get on without it?'.
This is the sort of testimony which ought to be borne in mind when the House is considering this point.
I must cover a few remaining points as quickly as I can. We have had rehearsed the arguments: how will the Commission and the Bill ensure that the cost of land to local authorities is reduced? I ought to answer this point under four heads. First, there is the levy itself, the £80 million of which a substantial part will be used for local authorities. Secondly, there is the provision for seeing that land is available well ahead of time. The current use value is less. There is the fact that there will be adequate supplies of land available, which will have its effect upon not only its availability but its price.
Lastly, there are the concessionary schemes whereby the advantage of the Land Commission buying at use value, less the levy, can be passed on to the concessionaires. There is not a single hon. Member opposite who has proved that the four ways by which we can help are not practicable.

Mr. Graham Page: Mr. Graham Page rose——

Mr. Skeffington: No, I will not give way now. I have listened to the hon. Member on many occasions and he knows that I usually give way, but there is one other point that I want to answer before I sit down.
I want to refer to some of the comments on Clause 8. Two questions have been asked in diametrically opposed fashions. The hope was expressed that the powers would never be used, and from this side of the House the fear was expressed that the Government would lack the courage to use the powers.
I have already explained the circumstances in which the procedure power in Clause 8 might be used, but there has been a number of not entirely accurate accounts of Clause 8. It is not true that the implication was made that in no cases could an inquiry be held. The Minister has the right in certain circumstances, at his discretion, to proceed with an inquiry. If there were a kind of wholesale withdrawal of land because of the levy, my right hon. Friend might decide to go straight ahead. But he has the discretion.
Secondly, if the Commission is acting outside Clauses 6(3) and 6(4) anybody who is aggrieved has the power to go to the High Court within six weeks for the necessary order. The Minister must issue a reasoned letter, if asked, under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, 1958, as to why there is not to be a public inquiry. It is wrong to say that he is not bound to consider representations. He is bound to consider representations under paragraph 4(2) of the First Schedule of the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, which is applied by Schedule 2 of the Bill. If the House had taken the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham alone it would have been completely misled about the proceedings. This power was used not in war time; it was used after the war, in 1946, for some hundreds of cases, and as far as I know not one gave rise to any difficulties.
A distinguished former Member of this House, John Stuart Mill, who represented the historic City of Westminster, said in 1848:
No man made the land: it is the original inheritance of the whole species".
By the Bill which we are now considering we are at long last seeing to it

that mankind comes into its own, and I hope that the House will give the Bill its Third Reading.

Question put. That the Bill be now read the Third time: —

The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 235.

Division No. 190.]
AYES
[7.1 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dell, Edmund
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Albu, Austen
Dempsey, James
Howie, W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dewar, Donald
Hoy, James


Alldritt, Walter
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Allen, Scholefield
Dickens, James
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Archer, Peter
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Armstrong, Ernest
Driberg, Tom
Hunter, Adam


Ashley, Jack
Dunn, James A.
Hynd, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunnett, Jack
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunwoody. Mr. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eadie, Alex
Janner, Sir Barnett


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Beaney, Alan
Ellis, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
English, Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bence, Cyril
Ennals, David
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Ensor, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Binns, John
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bishop, E. S.
Fennyhough, E.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Blackburn, F
Finch, Harold
Kelley, Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kenyon, Clifford


Boardman, H.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kerr. Mr. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Boston, Terence
Floud, Bernard
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foley, Maurice
Ledger, Ron


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Boyden, James
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, John (Reading)


Braddock. Mrs. E. M.
Ford, Ben
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bradley, Tom
Forrester, John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fowler, Gerry
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Brooks, Edwin
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Gardner, Tony
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Garrett, W. E.
Luard, Evan


Brown, R. w. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Garrow, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Buchan, Norman
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McBride, Neil


Butler. Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
McCann, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gregory, Arnold
MacColl, James


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacDermot, Niall


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanefly)
Macdonald, A. H.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McGuire, Michael


Chapman, Donald
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R, J.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Coe, Denis
Hate, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mackie, John


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwsll)
Mackintosh, John P.


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Maclennan, Robert


Corbet, Mr. Freda
Hunting, William
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, g.)
Harper, Joseph
McNamara, J. Kevin


Crawshaw, Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cronin, John
Hart. Mrs. Judith
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Haseldine, Norman
Marion, Simon (Bootle)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cullen. Mrs. Alice
Hazell, Bert
Manuel, Archie


Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mapp, Charles


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Heller, Eric S.
Marquand, David


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Henig, Stanley
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mason, Roy


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hilton, W. s.
Maxwell, Robert


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hooley, Frank
Mellish, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Horner, John
Mendelson, J. J.


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mikardo, Ian


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Millan, Bruce


Delargy, Hugh
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.




Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Redhead, Edward
Thornton, Ernest


Molloy, William
Rees, Merlyn
Tinn, James


Moonman, Eric
Reynolds, G. W.
Tomney, Frank


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tuck, Raphael


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Varley, Eric G.


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Moyle, Roland
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wallace, George


Murray, Albert
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Neal, Harold
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Newens, Stan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Weitzman, David


Norwood, Christopher
Roebuck, Roy
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ogden, Eric
Rose, Paul
Whitaker, Ben


O'Malley, Brian
Ross Rt. Hn. William
White. Mr. Eirene


Orbach, Maurice
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Whitlock, William


Orme, Stanley
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Oswald, Thomas
Ryan, John
Wilkins, W. A.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Sheldon, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Palmer, Arthur
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Park, Trevor
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Williams. Mr. Shirley (Hitchin)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Willie, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pavitt, Laurence
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Skeffington, Arthur
Winnick, David


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Slater, Joseph
Winterbottom, R. E.


Pentland, Norman
Snow, Julian
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wyatt, Woodrow


Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Stonehouse, John
Yates, Victor


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Strauss Rt. Hn. G. R.
Zilliacus, K.


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley



Price, William (Rugby)
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Probert, Arthur
Swingler, Stephen
Mr. Charles Grey and


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Taverne, Dick
Mr. George Lawson.


Rankin, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crawley, Aidan
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Astor, John
Croathwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Crouch, David
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Awdry, Daniel
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Baker, W. H. K.
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Balniel, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dance, James
Hawkins, Paul


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hay, John


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Higgins, Terence L.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hiley, Joseph


Bessell, Peter
Doughty, Charles
Hill, J. E. B.


Biffen, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hirst, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Drayson, G. B.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Black, Sir Cyril
Eden, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Blaker, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hooson, Emlyn


Body, Richard
Errington, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hordern, Peter


Bossom, Sir Clive
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Farr, John
Hunt, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Brains, Bernard
Fortescue, Tim
Iremonger, T. L.


Brewis, John
Foster, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gibson-Watt, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Jopling, Michael


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bullus, Sir Eric
Glyn, Sir Richard
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Burden, F. A.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Campbell, Gordon
Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, Marcus


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhew, Victor
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Channon, H. P. G.
Gower, Raymond
Kirk, Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, Anthony
Kitson, Timothy


Clark, Henry
Grant-Ferris, R.
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Clegg, Walter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Lambton, Viscount


Cooke, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Grffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Corfield, F. V.
Gurden, Harold
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Costain, A. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)







Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Nott, John
Smith, John


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Onslow, Cranley
Stainton, Keith


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Longden, Gilbert
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Stodart, Anthony


Loveys, W. H.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Lubbock, Eric
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Talbot, John E.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tapsell, Peter


MacArthur, Ian
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Peel, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Percival, Ian
Temple, John M.


McMaster, Stanley
Peyton, John
Thatcher. Mr. Margaret


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thorpe, Jeremy


Maddan, Martin
Pink, R. Bonner
Tilney, John


Maginnis, Jahn E.
Pounder, Rafton
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Marten, Neil
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mathew, Robert
Prior J. M. L.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Maude, Angus
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Mawby, Ray
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Pees-Davies, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Webster, David


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, William


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Monro, Hector
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


More, Jasper
Roots, William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Royle, Anthony
Woodnutt, Mark


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Russell, Sir Ronald
Worsley, Marcus


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Younger, Hn. George


Murton, Oscar
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.



Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Neave, Airey
Sharples, Richard
Mr. Francis Pym and


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Sinclair, Sir George



Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CONDUCT OF THE HOME SECRETARY

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the refusal of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to set up a specific inquiry to report as a matter of urgency on the escape of George Blake from Wormwood Scrubs Prison.

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed, may I inform the House that three Front Benchers, four Privy Councillors and a number of back benchers wish to take part in this debate, which is a comparatively short one.

Mr. Hogg: I must say at the outset that we on this side think it a pity that, contrary to all the recent precedents which we have been able to discover, at least those since the summer of 1963, the Home Secretary does not propose to rise in his place at the beginning of the debate to answer what is said and leave a senior colleague, perhaps the Prime Minister, to defend his conduct at the end.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, no less than I have, has reflected more than once upon the exchange of opinions which took place in the House last Monday afternoon. The more I reflect upon this exchange, the more convinced I become that the action taken by Her Majesty's Government over the Blake case has been not merely inadequate but inappropriate. I say "by Her Majesty's Government" advisedly. The target of this Motion of censure is, of course, the right hon. Gentleman because what has happened happened within his Department and because he was the Minister who made the statement last Monday to which we take exception. But it would be naïve for anyone acquainted with the way in which government works not to realise from the start that a statement of this character could not have been made by the right hon. Gentleman if he had not concerted it at least with the Prime Minister and with other senior colleagues in the Cabinet. Therefore, what has been done has been done by Her Majesty's Government.
The general problem of prison security has caused anxiety, I suppose, on all

sides of the House in recent years, especially since the summer of 1964, when one of the train robbers broke out of Birmingham Prison, an occasion which established almost for the first time in our prison history that our prisons, which had been constructed to keep people in, were not in future to be immune from organised rescue attempts from outside. Such escapes constitute a serious problem for any Government to consider.
There were over 520 escapes of all sorts in the calendar year 1964 and over 520 escapes of all sorts in the calendar year 1965. The Home Secretary has told us, I think, that up to 11th June this year there were 200 escapes of all sorts. The crude figures do not reflect the seriousness of some of the escapes, rescued and organised from outside as a result of criminal conspiracy. Therefore, there can be no dispute on either side of the House that the Home Secretary was quite correct when he considered that the general problem of prison security constituted a serious question for us all.
The more I think about this problem, however, the more I am convinced that what is needed to solve the general problem of prison security is not an investigation under an eminent personage to report, to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, in a few months, but a programme of action operating, as all programmes should operate, under the responsible Minister and not under a close relative of the Royal Family. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
My reason for that conclusion is that I should be astonished——

Mr. Leo Abse: On a point of order. Is it not quite improper, Mr. Speaker, for any reference to be made to the Royal Family, particularly in a way which by implication is clearly depreciatory?

Mr. Speaker: If there had been any depreciation in the reference, I would have called the right hon. and learned Gentleman to order.

Mr. Hogg: The reason for my conclusion is that I should be astonished if the Home Secretary were not already well aware, after nearly a year in office, of what is needed to be done. If he does remain ignorant, which I do not suppose


or suggest, I doubt whether his Department is ignorant. That this is so appears plainly from what has been done since Blake's escape.
Now that the horse has been stolen, stable doors are swinging ponderously to all over the nation. Guard dogs have mysteriously appeared. Prisoners have been switched, although, curiously enough, potential rescuers have been told where each is going. Watch towers have been springing up like mushrooms. It is possible that the Home Secretary has even considered the unlovely but not wholly inappropriate idea of putting a concertina of Dannert wire over some of the walls.
One is almost tempted to think that if some of this had been done at any time during the last two years, Mr. Blake would still be inside. What is needed, therefore, to improve the general pattern of security is a programme of action under the Minister and not an investigation under Lord Mountbatten. In the judgment of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, what needs an immediate and specific investigation is not the general pattern of the security of those still inside, but the particular question of how and why Blake has been allowed to escape.
May I say here and now, in view of something which fell from the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), that whatever anyone else may think I mean no discourtesy whatever to Lord Mount-batten. I acknowledge his public spirit, and I am sure that the whole House will acknowledge his public spirit, in undertaking what must be an onerous and, perhaps not unlikely, disagreeable and exacting task. But the more I think—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]—about the nature of the inquiry—[Interruption.]—and I sometimes think that hon. Members opposite might do some thinking, too—the more I am convinced——

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): May I put one point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman before he leaves the last point which he has been making? In his last question to me last Monday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there were two separate issues:
The first is the general question of security in the prison service, for which the right hon. Gentleman has, quite rightly, appointed a

general inquiry".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 655.]
Why has the right hon. and learned Gentleman changed his mind?

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. What I am saying now is the same thing. I am saying that what is required to solve the general problem is a programme of action, and what requires an inquiry is the specific question of Blake.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): That is not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said last Monday.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that that is a conclusive and important observation. The right hon. Gentleman might care to reflect that, save for a brief moment, of which his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is aware, I had no prior notice whatever of what the Home Secretary was to say. One of the very reasons why it becomes necessary to reopen a matter of this importance in debate is so that the whole question can be ventilated in the light of the reflections of the last six days.
The more I reflect upon it, the more certain I become that the Mountbatten inquiry was calculated, and by the Prime Minister almost certainly designed, to shroud under the billows of smoke which will be engendered in the next few months——

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take it from me that, while I of course accept full responsibility, as we all do, for this, it was my right hon. Friend who decided that Lord Mountbatten was the right choice and I concurred with it?

Mr. Hogg: Well, I am glad exactly to know the division of responsibility in this matter, and, of course, I shall accept what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but it is a curious reflection upon how experience of office sometimes develops—[Interruption.]—sometimes develops, that on 10th May, 1965—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the House will control itself.

Mr. Hogg: —that on 10th May, 1965, the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a Question from this side of the House, used these words about security matters, in describing his own responsibility as Prime Minister. He said that there was a special responsibility on the Prime Minister in such matters, and that it simply was not good enough
once the horse has bolted to have a high-level inquiry six months after to see what was wrong.
And since the right hon. Gentleman's memory is so good he will immediately recall to the House that that quotation is to be found in column 42 of HANSARD of 10th May, 1965. I remember the context very well, and we are going on to it.
But the object of this exercise is to shroud, under billows of smoke engendered by a public inquiry, the sharp outlines of a national scandal which emerged starkly as the result of a particular occurrence.
Now George Blake was, at the time of the right hon. Gentleman's appointment and of the appointment of the Government in October, 1964, probably the most important single prisoner we had in Her Majesty's prisons.

An Hon. Member: Why were you not there?

Mr. Hogg: I am perfectly sure that the public will notice the frivolous attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I have been too long in this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—to be deterred by jeers and frivolity, and I notice that right hon. Gentlemen are not altogether well comforted by the attitude of their supporters.
Blake had been sentenced to the appalling total of 42 years in prison. His crimes had related to matters so sensitive that virtually the whole trial was in camera. In any other country, or almost any other country, as the Lord Chief Justice reminded him at the time of his sentence, he would have paid for what he had done with his life, without question, and certainly without mercy, either in the United States of America or in Soviet Russia.
I do not pause to examine the full extent to which he may be a national danger. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made a statement about

that in answer to a Private Notice Question in the House, and, of course, I accept without question, on the narrow matter to which the Private Notice Question related, that what the right hon. Gentleman said was correct, and I should be doing no service either to the House or to national security were I to pretend the contrary, but surely it is rather innocent to believe that a dedicated enemy of this country who has spent 10 years or more in the security services can be of no use at all, if he takes refuge behind the Iron Curtain, either as to matters of consultation or organisation, on the matters on which he had been previously employed, or about the methods of interrogation to which he was subjected since he was arrested, and which must have told him a great deal about methods of interrogation employed by the counter-espionage service, and which might be of the highest possible use in training agents from the other side.
Incidentally, surely a far more important question even than that, is the question of morale—both of the security services of the Communist Powers, which must have been greatly enhanced by Blake's rescue, and of our own security services, when they reflect on what Blake has done and what has now become of him. Clearly, this is not a laughing matter. The escape of such a prisoner as this delivered a swingeing blow at the national prestige of this country, at a time when this country cannot afford very well further blows to its national prestige, and a serious setback to the international standing of the security forces of our allies; and we think this is something which cannot be erased without a particular inquiry.
The right hon. Gentleman in his statement last Monday reflected upon the fact that Blake had been placed in Wormwood Scrubs in 1961 when Lord Butler was Home Secretary, and from the jeering which greeted this announcement from the benches opposite one would have thought that disposed of the entire matter. I wonder whether the public will think the same. I wonder whether the public will think that it is a defence in a Government who have been more than two years in office——

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: Not at the moment—and who got in under the precise promise that they were going to make all things new, that they had, on this crucial matter, left things exactly as they were. I wonder whether the public will think that the Opposition ought to be deterred from doing their duty to subject the Front Bench to the necessary scrutiny of criticism, if they allowed themselves to be deterred by the fact, if it was a fact——

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Silverman: Mr. Silverman rose——

Mr. Hogg: No. I will not give way at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because I am addressing myself to the Front Bench opposite. I wonder whether the country would think that we as an Opposition would be doing our duty to subject the Front Bench opposite to the scrutiny of criticism in the public interest if we allowed ourselves to be deterred by the fact, if it be a fact, that a former colleague had been guilty of an error of judgment?
But I doubt whether, on mature reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will consider that what he said to the House on Monday last reflected the whole of the information in his own possession or really constituted a candid admission of all he knew. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman knows—perhaps he will confirm whether he knows or not, but I assert that he knows—that in May, 1964, there was brought to the Home Office, while Mr. Brooke was Home Secretary, the report of an elaborate plan to rescue Blake, and on the instructions of the then Home Secretary the Home Office was instructed that, true or false, this report must be taken extremely seriously, the more seriously as by that time Lonsdale had been exchanged; and he raised the question—and the question was raised, to which I shall revert in a moment—as to whether Blake should not be moved to another prison. He also, so I am informed, instituted special precautions and security measures against Blake which, had they still been in force in October, 1966, would certainly have prevented the escape.
I hope that it will not be thought that I want to make an unfair point. I recognise

that special security precautions involving a constant watch cannot be continued indefinitely either from the point of view of the necessities of the prison service or from that of simple humanity to a prisoner. But if and when they were relaxed—and the House is entitled to know when they were relaxed—in the light of the question which has been raised as to whether Blake ought to remain in Wormwood Scrubs, surely that should have led the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor to move him.
Even that is not the whole story which the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us last Monday. In August, 1964, Wilson—I mean, the train robber—escaped from a Birmingham prison. Again, that was considered by the Home Secretary of the day, and again he instructed his office that it was clear that, from that moment of history, organised rescue attempts by professional criminals would have to be guarded against from without. He recommended what had not then been done—because, up to that point, prisons had mainly been places to keep people inside—the strengthening of Durham, Parkhurst and Leicester to be secure against it.
That has now been done but, when it was done, why was it not considered that Blake should be transferred to a new security wing. If he had been transferred to one of those new security blocks, there is little doubt that he would still be inside it now. Instead of being kept in an ordinary prison 20 yards from a public street and 20 minutes from London Airport and allowed, we read, the facilities of a VHF radio and coffee mornings, why was that not done?
In addition, Mr. Brooke then set up a working party to draw up plans immediately for a special security establishment, which has since been located at Albany but which has not yet been completed under the present Government. In addition to that, the Home Secretary of the day drew the special attention of his Department to the danger of Blake escaping after he had learned of the escape of Wilson. He pointed out that if Blake were to escape, it would be as disastrous as or more disastrous than if one of the other train robbers were to escape.
The right hon. Gentleman has not told us another fact. In October, 1964, within a fortnight of taking office, the Labour Government who were going to


be so peculiarly careful about matters of security and promised and boasted that they would be, received a fresh report from Birmingham Prison which indicated the method of Wilson's escape. A request was thereupon made by the then Home Secretary that a special officer with security experience should be appointed forthwith to act as a security adviser throughout the prisons of the land as to what further measures were necessary. It was not done for over a year. It was not done until another train robber escaped. It was not done until the end of 1965, and then, lackadaisically, fecklessly and at last, Lord Stow Hill appointed not a security adviser but a retired Metropolitan Police superintendent. One wonders what he has been doing since December, 1965. Did he go to the Scrubs? Did he make a report upon it? Did he tell the right hon. Gentleman that within 20 yards of a public street, within 20 minutes of London Airport and at a point at which a bold and successful escape had already taken place, there was in custody the most important State prisoner of the time? Did the right hon. Gentleman know it?
It is no good trying to cower behind Lord Butler's skirts when those are the facts. Blake has escaped, just as Mr. Brooke warned the Home Office that he might escape. It has been disastrous, more disastrous than any of the escapes of the train robbers.
Even from the meagre information that we got last Monday certain unalterable facts have begun to emerge. He was rescued from without as a result of a conspiracy in which there must have been a considerable number of participants, involving an elaborate plan, the expenditure of large sums of money, the importation of sophisticated material and, for the purpose of concerting plans and securing co-operation over quite a period of time, a freedom of communication between the outside and the prisoner. We see that it is even suggested that those communications were effected by wireless. It was a conspiracy, moreover, involving an escape vehicle, an escape route and perhaps rehearsals on the part of the conspirators, a getaway plan, perhaps a temporary hideout and an ultimate destination.
Those are the facts which have emerged even from the meagre information that we have been given by the Home Secretary. They are facts which demand a short, sharp, brisk inquiry, resulting in criminal prosecutions, if necessary, and the publication of such conclusions as are arrived at which do not damage security. It should be completed within weeks rather than months, as the right hon. Gentleman told us on Monday. It should be empowered to summon witnesses, because one can well understand that some of the potential informants might be reluctant to give evidence, and to compel the production of documents. Finally, it should be headed by a man with some professional experience of eliciting facts and marshalling evidence and not by one of the most eminent subjects of the Crown. Surely that is what is wanted.
Instead, we have a general inquiry which will take months, or so the right hon. Gentleman told us last Monday, under this eminent person who has not the technical expertise and has not been afforded by the right hon. Gentleman the rather miserable powers accorded by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the prospective Ombudsman. That is what we have been given. Is it to be wondered that we were not wholly satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman had to tell us the other day?
Let me remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said. He gave us the information then at his disposal about the actual escape. He gave us the proposals—or the fact that he was about to take action to remedy the want of security—which, so far as they have been put into force, might have been put into force at any time in the last two years, and most certainly would have been if Mr. Henry Brooke's suggestion in October, 1964, had been acted upon properly.
Lastly, as the pièce de résistance, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Second, I believe that an independent inquiry into prison security is now called for. I have asked Lord Mountbatten to head such an inquiry and he has most generously agreed to undertake this important task. I hope that his report will be available in a few months.
I at once challenged the right hon. Gentleman's judgment in this matter. I said:
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a fuller report into the particular case to which


the Question relates, since an escape of a prisoner of this kind is a matter which must necessarily cause widespread concern quite outside the ordinary questions of security in the prison service.
The right hon. Gentleman, as he was entitled to do, turned me down flat. He said:
But it will certainly be perfectly competent for the inquiry to look into the circumstances of this particular escape and to report anything which it thinks should be reported on that.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition then pressed the right hon. Gentleman and asked him to make it a specific instruction to Lord Mountbatten, and the right hon. Gentleman turned him down flat, too. He said:
But what I think is required at present is an inquiry into our prison security as a whole. I do not think "—
lest there be any doubt about his attitude—
it would have been in any way appropriate to ask Lord Mountbatten to conduct an inquiry into a particular escape on Saturday evening.
That is the issue between us. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman again, and he answered me a little less flat footedly than before. I asked him to reconsider his attitude about a particular inquiry, and the right hon. Gentleman was quite right, because these are far too serious matters to make false points, to remind me that I said:
Will not the Home Secretary give us an assurance that there will be a specific investigation, with a report, into this specific instance, either independently of or as an integral part of the Mountbatten inquiry?".
The right hon. Gentleman then said:
This can certainly be done, and, I hope, will be done, as an integral part of the inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1966; Vol. 734, cc. 650–55.]
I had at one time thought that the right hon. Gentleman was moving this way, but when hon. Members afterwards said, "Order it" he did not order it, and it is clear that although there may be attempts, as there nearly always are in the case of the right hon. Gentleman, to take into account seriously made criticisms of his conduct, the gulf between us remains. It remained at the end of Question Time on Monday, and it remained after he had defined the terms of reference and released them to the Press. We want a specific inquiry of the kind that I have indicated into the

stark outlines of a particular national scandal. The right hon. Gentleman is offering a general inquiry into recent escapes, reporting, so he told us, after a few months into what has gone wrong.
That leads me to the question of responsibility for the whole matter. Of course the Home Secretary is the constitutional target for our Motion, and I think it is only honourable of him to have shouldered that responsibility without qualification. He is of course responsible for the prison service. He is responsible for the police force which should prevent crime and should set in motion perhaps more vigorous measures to recapture the criminal. Also, as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister reminded us on 10th May, he has the responsibility for the operation of the security services as well as the responsibility for the police. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has rightly been selected as, and has accepted the rôle of, the target for a Motion of Censure.
But, as the Prime Minister frankly accepted at the beginning of this debate, the responsibility in this case is not the sole responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman. It is the responsibility of the Government of which the Prime Minister is the head.

Mr. A. Woodburn: To use the right hon. and learned Gentleman's analogy, is not the issue here that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants an examination into one of the stable doors, and not an examination into all the stable doors?

Mr. Hogg: I want the horse to be found.
The Prime Minister, in the speech to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks, after defining the rôles of individual Ministers and then of the Home Secretary, said:
In addition to this, the Prime Minister has a very special responsibility as head of the security services. I have taken certain dispositions, certain action to make sure that I am kept fully informed of everything that I feel can possibly involve any security risk …"—
Has he?—
because"—
he went on to say—
it is not enough once the horse has bolted to have a high-level inquiry six months later to see what was wrong.


And he spelt it out:
It is the duty of the Prime Minister to see that he is so informed about these matters that he can take immediate action and close that door and any other doors which may be open."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 42–3.]
I realise that in the Blake matter the right hon. Gentleman is largely shouldering the blame for other persons. Behind the Home Secretary is the Prime Minister, and possibly also the even more coy figure of the Paymaster-General. I am sorry for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but I cannot help that the rules of Ministerial responsibility in this country are harsh, and sometimes operate cruelly. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that he cannot take the blame for his colleagues, he has one course open to him, but so long as he remains in office he must recognise that what has happened has happened altogether within his own Department. There has been a great lapse of security within his Department. The measures which he has taken to put things right confuse two entirely separate issues, and do not carry the confidence of the country.
But what are we to say about the Prime Minister? There he sits, peeping out from behind his colleagues' skirts, unwilling to take his place on the firing step when his colleague to his right is exposed and to shot and shell. One of the most disagreeable features of public life in recent years was the sustained, vindictive, and if I might borrow a phrase, politically motivated attack mounted upon the then Home Secretary, Mr. Henry Brooke, by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the present Paymaster-General. I more than ever regret that it was the Home Secretary that we have had to attack tonight, because he was an honourable exception to what I shall always look upon as one of the basest features of Labour opposition.
I want to quote once more the words which the present Foreign Secretary uttered of Mr. Henry Brooke—as he then was—after the first of the escapes, which was the Wilson escape from a Birmingham prison in 1964. Referring to a whole series of episodes amounting to nothing in comparison to that to which the right hon. Gentleman has exposed the country, he said:
Just a few years ago almost any one of these messes would have been regarded as

sufficient of a scandal for the Minister to take personal responsibility. That would have meant the offer of his resignation.
But not so with the right hon. Gentleman; still less so with the Prime Minister, the man whose bungling incompetence in almost every field of policy—equalled only by his almost terrifying conceit—has brought our once proud country in shame to her knees in so many things.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) adopted the tone he did tonight. On Monday last it seemed that he was taking a much more politic and temperate line than his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but tonight he not only made a very long speech for this short debate; he resorted to extraordinarily farfetched metaphor to pad out a very weak and poor case.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he intended no discourtesy to Lord Mountbatten, but he contrived on at least three occasions to make such discourteous reflections upon him. He went so far as to imply that Lord Mountbatten is the sort of man from whom things can be shrouded—this man of great vigour and energy who has always been ruthless though fair in any inquiries that he has made. Remmebreing that he has three very able assessors to help him I thought that it was an extremely unworthy slur upon him.
Then, in the last words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, we discovered what it was all about. This was to be a covert attack, under the guise of a Motion of censure—to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman never referred—upon the Home Secretary, who is one of the best men that has ever presided over the Home Office. That is the motive behind the Motion.
The escape of Blake is a very grave and disturbing affair, but it is not the issue that is before us tonight. The issue chosen by the Opposition concerns the method of inquiry into Blake's escape. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was very careful not to tell us about the terms of reference of the Mountbatten inquiry, because those terms of reference completely destroy the entire basis of the


Motion before the House. The terms of reference are
To inquire into recent prison escapes, with particular reference to that of George Blake, and to make recommendations for the improvement of prison security".
Directly those terms of reference were made known, the Political Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, last Tuesday, said of the terms of reference:
They meet the point repeatedly made by Mr. Heath"—
who is now leaving us—
and Mr. Hogg from the Opposition Front Bench yesterday, that the Blake affair should be the subject of special investigation.
That was just before the Motion of censure was put down. The terms of reference exactly meet the point made on Monday by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, when he asked for an inquiry
either independently or as an integral part of the Mountbatten inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 655.]
This is precisely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asking for last Monday—so precisely that he had to seek refuge tonight in a piece of hot, coloured verbiage.
It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman had rather a bad conscience about having to put down this Motion. There was an obviously inspired report in the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday last, written by its Political Correspondent—a man of known integrity who would not have published such a story save on the highest authority. He said that the terms of reference
issued from the Home Office some hours later
than the Motion was put down. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition obviously wanted to give the impression that he and his right hon. Friends did not know anything about the terms of reference, but it is demonstrable that they must have known hours before they put down the Motion.
I have looked up the times when these various things appeared on the tape. On the Press Association General News Service tape the terms of reference appeared at 6.55 p.m.—one hour and thirteen minutes before the censure Motion appeared upon the tape.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting the precise contrary of the fact. I not only did not desire to pretend

that the terms of reference were preceded by the Motion of censure; I expressly said that the Motion of censure was designed to object, among other things, to the terms of reference.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The Political Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph would not have published this story unless there had been some very strong information—I am not accusing the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself—from whoever it is whose job it was to convey these things to the Daily Telegraph.
For a good hour or more before the Motion was placed upon the Order Paper right hon. and learned Gentlemen must have known that the Home Secretary had given them—and had published that he had given them—exactly what they were asking for. Therefore, the question arises: why was this Motion put down after the terms of reference were known? The reasons are simple. The Leader of the Opposition committed himself rashly and too far last Monday and, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself tonight—I regret to say—he was determined to extract any little party capital that he possibly could out of the situation.
If Conservatives are tempted to make party capital out of this they should remember the key dates. Blake was convicted on 31st May and was then put into Wormwood Scrubbs, which is 20 yards from the street and a few miles from London Airport. In October, 1961, he was taken off the escape list. I do not complain about this; it was done after due care and consideration and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Monday, after discussions with the security services. It was a decision taken after all thought and care had been given to the question.
Perhaps Blake should have been moved during the last two years, but it does not lie in Conservative mouths—least of all in the mouths of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—to say so, because that would be to ask us to alter arrangements made after all due care and consideration and calculation by the previous Administration.
I should like to raise very briefly a point about a remark made on Monday by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), of which I have given him


notice. He made a reference to the police being
already pretty demoralised by the right hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1966; Vol. 734, c. 653.]
The right hon. Gentleman was referring to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that, with his known views on hanging, and so on, was the clear implication that the failure to alter the law in this respect was demoralising the police. This is very dangerous and irresponsible doctrine. The law on hanging is not a matter for the Government. The law was carried on a free vote in the House. What the right hon. Gentleman said was an unworthy slur on the police.
All of us have a duty to stand by the police in their hard, arduous and often dangerous duties. But the police also have a duty, which they fully recognise and carry out, to accept the law of the land laid down by Act of Parliament. After all, that is the basis of their activity as a law-enforcing organisation.
I should like briefly to return to the main issue. Whether or not there should be an interim report, which seemed to be one of the points which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made in the midst of his turgid remarks, must by all precedent, be left to the chairman of the inquiry. This was the case in all committees of inquiry set up by the Opposition when they were in office. It is the accepted precedent. A chairman cannot decide in this or other matters whether to produce an interim report until he has begun his inquiry. I do not doubt that Lord Mountbatten will start straightaway going into the Blake escape, and will have to decide whether it is proper and possible to separate this from the other matters and make an interim report. According to all precedent, this should be left to the chairman.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is quite inadvertently misrepresenting my position. I have never asked for an interim report. I and the Motion both ask for a special inquiry.

Mr. Gordon Walker: On Monday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for a special inquiry as an integral part of the Mountbatten inquiry. If that is

all he wants, I do not know why he made such a long speech today.
When we have the report or reports—we do not know whether there will be an interim report—it will be right to have a searching debate in the House into the whole question of prison security and the Blake escape. What is wrong is to spend the time of the House of Commons on this squalid, pointless Motion, which has been primarily produced for covert reasons to attack my right hon. Friend and partly for party reasons. It is an abuse of the right of the Opposition to demand time to debate a Motion of censure on a Minister of the Crown. The Motion should be withdrawn. If it is not withdrawn, it should be resoundingly and scornfully rejected.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: The right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) criticised me for referring to the demoralising effect of the Home Secretary's attitude to crime and punishment. I do not believe that anything I said was either untrue or unfair. Have we not good reason to be worried when we read that the Home Secretary has been booed and jeered at by the police and that the prison warders are threatening to go slow as a protest against his decisions?
I am not commending these deplorable occurrences—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course I am not. But do they not show the extent to which the Home Secretary has strained the loyalty and weakened the morale of the police and prison services, who feel very badly let down?

Mr. Ben Whitaker: On a point of order. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension about which Motion we are discussing.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order. I noticed that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, allowed the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) to make the attack on my right hon. Friend. I imagine that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I have not heard anything out of order from the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).

Mr. Sandys: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not proposing to pursue that point further.
I consider that, by his reluctance to hold a proper type of inquiry into Blake's escape, the Home Secretary has further undermined general confidence. Of course, I welcomed his decision to institute a comprehensive study into the problems of prison security. In fact I asked for it even before the right hon. Gentleman made his statement. Having worked closely for several years with Lord Mountbatten in the Ministry of Defence, I appreciate his great abilities. I am perfectly sure that he will carry out this general review into the broad problems of prison security with the utmost thoroughness and efficiency and that he will produce a valuable report which will contain constructive and useful recommendations.
But the investigation into the circumstances of Blake's escape and the opportionment of responsibility is quite a different kind of inquiry and should have been kept entirely separate. It is more in the nature of a tribunal. It will have to cross-examine witnesses, weigh evidence and pronounce opinions which will affect the reputations and careers of officials in the Home Office and prison service. I am sure that Lord Mountbatten would be the first to agree that this aspect of the inquiry is a job, not for an admiral, but for a judge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is essentially a judicial matter. It is a quasi-judicial investigation.
The truth is that when the Home Secretary instituted this inquiry he did not intend that it should probe too deeply into the circumstances of Blake's escape. Otherwise he would surely have included among the assessors somebody with legal experience. If he intended this inquiry to examine witnesses and sift evidence about Blake's escape, which is a quasi-judicial task, why did he not include among the assessors somebody with legal experience? The right hon. Gentleman obviously hoped that by hurriedly ordering a wide-ranging inquiry into future methods he would distract attention from past mistakes. But that is such an old trick that I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman could have thought that he was going to get away with it.
The only result of his evasive tactics has been to give the impression that he has got something to hide. Blake has been allowed to escape from prison. But we do not intend to allow the right hon. Gentleman to escape from his duty to tell the whole truth to Parliament and the people.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: Of one thing we can be sure. It is that this issue is too serious to be laughed off or jeered off. It is an issue which concerns the very fabric of our society. That being so, I intend, with Mr. Deputy Speaker's indulgence, to go rather wide of the Motion, because the matters involved here are much wider. They concern principally the Home Secretary himself and the execution of his office while he holds that post, remembering that it is an office which is responsible for tendering to the Cabinet advice on issues which affect the moral, ethical and behavioural standards of the British people.
I am speaking of standards which have been slipping disastrously in the last 20 years, standards which must be brought up with a jolt if confidence in the office held by my right hon. Friend is to be restored and if confidence in the police by the public and in the public by the police is to be put on a better footing than is the situation at present prevailing. These are the issues before the House affecting the office of my right hon. Friend.
Like other hon. Members, I have had a nodding acquaintance with the present Home Secretary during my years in the House and I know that he is a somewhat diffident and shy man; a little difficult to approach, although I believe him to be sincere in the execution of his office. I have, on most other issues, agreed with him on policy matters. On this issue, however, I have not. My views are known and were known before the event—indeed, were deliberately known.
Everything seems to happen in Shepherd's Bush—Wormwood Scrubs, the murder of the three policemen. These are matters which affect the security of the nation and are worrying my constituents. They are particularly worried about the number of prison escapes—19 during the past 20 months—close at hand. The


task of Parliament tonight is to try to put these matters into perspective. What are we doing? What can we be said to be doing now to help to put matters in perspective?
Environment and upbringing come into this, but responsibility and respect for law and order is something else. These are taught through our institutions to our children on their way to adulthood. What the Home Office—and, to a lesser degree, the police—have been unable to tackle adequately and to take adequate measures to achieve is the tempo of life and Britain's crime rate, which is ever rising and becoming more violent.
The Home Secretary is a man of very little love—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—When the three policemen were murdered in my constituency I expected either a letter or a word of sympathy from him. [HON. MEMBERS: "He paid a visit."] I am sorry to say that nothing arrived—[Interruption.] There is no need for my hon. Friends to interrupt me. They know that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. No letter of sympathy from my right hon. Friend was received by the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. Naturally, this hon. Member was under considerable pressure from his constituents, who were anxious for him to say something about the issue. I therefore left my investigations until the followins day and left my right hon. Friend to settle down to his job and make his on-the-spot investigation. T should have thought, in the circumstances, that he could or should have written to me a message of sympathy, and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand how strongly the hon. Member feels about these issues, but he is getting a little wide of the Motion, to which I hope he will relate his remarks.

Mr. Tomney: Gladly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I thought at the time that the Home Secretary's decision, taken almost on the spot, not to recommend a change in the law had been given with undue haste. I still think so. The Metropolitan Police is 6,000 recruits short and resignations are occurring every week. A new type of criminal is before us. For the first time, the British policeman appears to be losing his nerve—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]

—in the face of unrelenting pressure against him personally. It is one thing for a policeman to be backed up by the law. It is another for him to be backed up by the public. But when neither give him adequate protection, he is in a frightful dilemma. I have said previously, and I repeat now, that we should, in circumstances where there is wilful murder of a policeman, protect——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Motion concerns the refusal of the Home Secretary to hold a specific inquiry into a prison escape. I hope that the hon. Member will speak to the Motion.

Mr. Tomney: It is all tied up with the Motion. We are speaking of the escape of prisoners from prison and of a depleted prison service for which recruits are difficult to obtain. In the sort of free society we have, it is not easy to get men to take dangerous employment, and the prison service provides dangerous employment.
The prison about which we are speaking has been understaffed for the last seven years. Correspondence has passed between the Home Secretary and myself about staffing, but the prison is still understaffed. It should be pointed out and recognised that we are now dealing with a new type of criminal who, by power of money and organisation, is able to engineer escapes of a spectacular character from prison. This, therefore, places a responsibility on us and the Home Office to put matters right.

At Question Time last Monday week I said that Blake should not have been at Wormwood Scrubs. It is not a maximum security prison—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who put him there? "] I am dealing with the point that Blake was at Wormwood Scrubs. I am not concerned so much with who put him there. The man has just recently escaped to the detriment of the nation. Let us not try to dodge the issue. He has escaped to the detriment of the nation and of the security services, and it is something we should not have allowed to happen——

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend has said that this prisoner has escaped to the detriment of the nation. Does he, with the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), also accept what the Prime Minister said


this afternoon, that there is no further security risk from this prisoner, even though he has escaped?

Mr. Tomney: I am not in a position to answer that question, nor do I think that anyone else is. The men to whom I refer are now organising escapes from outside the prison in the most deliberate and coldblooded circumstances. In this situation, how is the prison service to be strengthened? What can the Home Secretary do to to attract and retain recruits? What is the overall policy of the Home Office in this matter?
In all service employment which carries a service tenancy it is laid down that the tenancy ceases when the man reaches retiring age. This is a grievous thing in the prison service. The day a man finishes, he is out of his prison flat or cottage. The same applies to most policemen who are in police; houses. I therefore suggest that as a first step we ought to begin to put this on a proper footing, and make long-term provision of this character in a service right through to a man's retirement——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is very much wide of the Motion. I must ask him to bring his remarks to the Motion, otherwise he will have to resume his seat.

Mr. Tomney: All right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that I was speaking to the Motion. What I am saying is all bound up with the original Motion—how to protect the police and warders, how to induce men into the service, and so on. If we cannot get that, I do not know what the future of the police and the prison services will be.
Maclean and Burgess were one thing—they were never apprehended. Kroger and Lonsdale were put inside. This man Blake, possibly the greatest criminal of them all, was put inside for 42 years. It is obvious that his escape could not have been engineered without considerable help from inside, and perhaps from outside, the prison. Therefore, any investigation must be of the widest character possible. It must range from the top officials downwards through the whole staff and the ancillary services. The prison staffing must be checked, and the hours of maximum relaxation—Blake escaped during an hour of maximum relaxation.
I know for a fact that the prison warders have been very overworked; some of them have had only one day off in three weeks. This is not conducive either to a man's career or to his good conduct in his position. These men get tired, over-wrought and anxious. All these matters, together with considerations of proper conditions, are within the Home Secretary's province.
Whether the inquiry, with its terms of reference, will give the House of Commons its answer at once we cannot yet say. The Home Secretary himself is very much on trial in this matter, and will be for a period of, perhaps, 12 months, until matters begin to shake themselves out. He is a man of integrity, and I hope that he will come out of this incident with full honour. He has not had much time to bed himself into his job)——

Dr. Hugh Gray: He is the best Home Secretary we have ever had in the history of the country.

Mr. Tomney: —but, given confidence, and the confidence of the House, I think that he can achieve what he is setting out to do——

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I am very interested in what the hon. Member has been saying, but as he has this intimate knowledge of conditions in Wormwood Scrubs, and knew that Blake was there, can he say whether he suggested to the Home Secretary before Blake escaped that Blake should be moved?

Mr. Tomney: I did not know that Blake was at Wormwood Scrubs, nor could I. That was not a very clever question. But I do know about the numerous complaints by warders about conditions in the prison service, and it is to that that I have been addressing myself.
To resume my previous theme, I do not know whether this inquiry will give us the results we all want. If it does not, coupled with the nervousness in the police service and the prison officer service, the House of Commons will have to do some very drastic rethinking about conditions and recruitment in those services. I do not intend to deny my right hon. Friend the benefit of my vote tonight. I shall support him, but I hope that the House


once having got this matter behind it, will then be able to say that the Home Secretary shall be given a reasonable time to put the whole matter in order.
Attempts have been made during the last few days to transfer important prisoners to places of maximum security. The Home Office should now consider as a set policy in future that prisoners of this character, violent prisoners, train robbers, high security prisoners, should be placed in prisons of maximum security. If we get that alone out of this inquiry—the provision of better and safer prisons—we shall have gone some way to justify the high office of Home Secretary. We as a House of Commons all want to get the best out of this service that we can get. I fervently hope that the present Home Secretary can do it.

8.37 p.m.

Sir Peter Rawlinson: I share with the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) the view that this is a grave matter and I think no one outside this House would not think it a very grave matter indeed. I share with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) disappointment that the Home Secretary did not reply immediately in this debate. Doubtless, he will speak at the end of the debate and perhaps have a great debating triumph, but those of us who are seriously concerned would like to know why in circumstances such as these he refuses to have a specific inquiry into the escape of this very especial man in these very especial circumstances.
Doubtless the Home Secretary will tell us at the end of the debate that this was an especial man bearing a terrible punishment for terrible offences he had committed, a man who had nothing in common with so many other people who serve prison sentences and that the only thing he had in common with other escapees was the ease with which he effected his escape. There are unique considerations in his case and particular circumstances attaching to the escape of George Blake which apply to no other convict in the country. Persons interested in a man such as George Blake go far beyond the underground who might perhaps have engineered this escape and might have been the instrument of other people.
I noted what the Prime Minister said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon. I hope he is right, but I wonder if he is right. Why for instance should it be said that no one was further interested in what George Blake could know in the security matters of the world? Why should they be interested after five years, so runs the argument? They were still interested after many years in Colonel Abel whom they transferred for Power. They were still interested in Lonsdale and exchanged him for Greville Wynne. They are still interested in the Krogers and an exchange for Gerald Brooke. Why is that? Is it only for the morale of the service or for something more which they might be able to learn?
Therefore, although the Prime Minister has said that with all the authority he has in these particular matters, I wonder. I sincerely hope that we may not see George Blake turning up in some Eastern European country. All I can say is that, while I listened to what the Prime Minister said, I wonder. Blake was a man of very great talent and very great abilities. He deceived many people for a very long time and under very difficult and very dangerous circumstances. Is it any wonder that he was able to deceive the prison authorities and, of course, his fellow convicts?

Mr. William Price: I am sorry to interrupt what is a very interesting speech, but I wonder if the right hon. and learned Gentleman can help me on two points. First, in view of all this, why was Blake very rapidly put on the list of those not likely to escape; and secondly, in view of the concern of Mr. Henry Brooke, of which we heard from the right hon. and learned Member, why was it that Mr. Brooke did not take the obvious step and put him back on the list of those likely to escape?

Sir P. Rawlinson: I know not what the reaction was to the rumour that reached the Home Office—perhaps we shall hear—in May, 1964, that there was a plot to get Blake out of prison. At that time there were limitations on maximum security, limitations which I agree should never have been. They were limitations which existed until what was done in August, 1965, at


Durham and Leicester and in 1966 at Parkhurst.
I agree that I would not want to have seen a man of such especial importance kept in this particular prison. The country wants to know from the right hon. Gentleman, who has brushed aside our demand for this inquiry, whether the prison authorities were warned about this particular man. This is the dilemma they were faced with. They had to balance on the one side the fact that here was a man with an enormous sentence ahead of him who had to be given some tolerable living conditions. They had to balance that against the need for some special security in this particular case? Were there security checks on those with whom he talked? Were they given a warning of Blake's abilities and talents? Why, in fact, was he retained in Wormwood Scrubs when he could and should have been moved to Parkhurst, Leicester or Durham? This was a political crime and he had political sympathisers. Were any checks made on members of the Communist Party who went to the prison? The prison has a prison college. There are teachers there. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps tell us whether some of those teachers are Communist Party members. Why was no check made? Why were no searches made to see if there were political sympathisers from outside who were in possible contact with him? There seems to have been confusion over the state in which the authorities decided to keep him.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any direct allegations to make, he should make them openly and not by innuendo. He should let the Mountbatten inquiry go fully into the matter. It might be a new principle, one we might have to consider, to apply political tests of the sort of which he is speaking and which certainly none of my predecessors have applied.

Hon. Members: McCarthy.

Sir P. Rawlinson: The right hon. Gentleman is attempting to excuse a fact—[Interruption.] No. The right hon. Gentleman has intervened. I suggested that, where there are special circumstances surrounding a man, that is a special case. The right hon. Gentleman knows what this man did to other human beings. When there are special circumstances, as

in this case, when there are likely to be political sympathisers, is it not sensible and right to have political checks made upon persons who might be in contact, especially if there had been warnings given to his predecessor of an escape plan? There is a duty to keep such a person in prison. Why should there not be general inquiries of this kind?
I am asking a question. This is what this House is for, namely, to ask questions and to receive answers, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give them. I understand that Blake was permitted to change his job to that of storekeeper. I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that he was refused permission to do any translating work. Why? Was this because the authorities suspect that it might be a way in which messages might be passing to and fro? Again, he was given certain privileges. Was he given any particular privileges in regard to his wife visiting him? Was he entitled to see his wife alone? If he was for a time, was that changed.
Was not this a strange casualness in view of this man's ability to lull people into a sense of security and get people on his side, to give this man various advantages. The authorities held back in some things, but permitted him to have this very powerful radio receiver. Why? Why should he be able to have that? What was the necessity?

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Granted that these are relevant questions, what puzzles some of us is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should think that they cannot be investigated by Lord Mountbatten and treated within his terms of reference.

Sir P. Rawlinson: Because these are serious matters which demand a specific inquiry. This is a special case involving a special type of man. I see the hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head. I sat for a long time on the Government Benches and heard him and his hon. Friends who were in opposition at the time demanding special inquiries in special cases. They were doing their duty as an Opposition.
I say that such an inquiry was what was needed in this case, not a general inquiry on a high-powered basis which will take months. The Home Secretary knows full


well that what was needed here was direct forceful, vigorous investigation. Has the investigation been very vigorous so far? Have contacts been made with every person? I hope we shall hear about this from the Home Secretary.
This escape demonstrates very forcibly the great malaise which exists in our prison administration. It demonstrates the state of our prison services. The Home Secretary is the Minister who speaks in the Cabinet for police officers and for warders. He hears the responsibility for these services. He has been failing, and because he has been failing it has led to this dispirited service.
I think that the Home Secretary is a person who could and should adorn every single office in the Cabinet, save for one. The office that I do not think that his particular talents lie in is that of Home Secretary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I believe that this is shown by the fact that he has not done what should have been done in this case, namely, ordered a complete inquiry.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: On previous occasions I have listened with respect to the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson), but I must say that the contribution he made tonight was quite unworthy of him. It is not only wrong but it is also unfair to use an opportunity such as this to try personally to undermine my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

The Motion is irresponsible and unfair. In the 21 years I have been in the House I have never heard a worse case advanced for a censure Motion than that advanced today. The main contributions were of low value. Many of us on this side of the House who have had a good deal of experience in visiting prisons and in studying prison conditions believe that this attack is political and quite unworthy.

I had the greatest admiration for Mr. Butler, as he then was, when he was Home Secretary. If something had happened in 1961 which was being questioned tonight, I should not have thought it right for us to table a Motion of censure upon Lord Butler. If we were to seek to make political capital out of issues of this kind, we should have censure Motions galore.

The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) spoke of the large number of prisoners who escaped in 1964 and 1965. I want to draw attention to the large number of prisoners who escaped from security prisons—I am speaking of closed prisons—during six years of government by the party opposite. During the period 1958 to 1963, no fewer than 413 prisoners escaped from closed prisons. Many of us are very deeply concerned about those escapes. In fact, there have been——

Mr. Peter Archer: Will my hon. Friend also accept that in 1965 the number fell from 85 to 71?

Mr. Yates: I am coming to that. I want to emphasise that the figures I have given relate to prisoners who have escaped from closed prisons. They do not include remand centres and open prisons. In 1961, under the Tory Government, a record number of people escaped from closed prisons; 112 escaped in one year. In 1964 the number was 75.
There is a need for an inquiry, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having stood firm for a general inquiry. Of course I can understand that hon. Members opposite do not want investigations to be made into those who escaped while they were in power. What has the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone told us this afternoon that could not be investigated in a general inquiry? It is absolute eyewash to suggest that my right hon. Friend, who is known to be courageous in all that he does, is trying to hoodwink or hide facts from the public or from the House. My hon. Friends—and I am speaking for many of them—are fully in support of my right hon. Friend's action. Nothing has been said that would justify putting on one side the general inquiry and having a specific inquiry into one case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Tomney) referred to a prison in his constituency. In my constituency there is Winson Green prison. I have never regarded it as my special preserve but I have been concerned about escapes from that prison. I have been concerned about the escape of Wilson. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said that he wanted to


catch the horse, but he did not seem to have pursued Wilson very much.
I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what I think is perhaps an important cause of the present situation. I have heard right hon. and hon. Members opposite speaking in favour of long prison sentences and I have discussed the matter with a good many prison governors. I invite any hon. Member opposite to tell me of any prison governor in this country who welcomes a very long-term prisoner. I am not now referring to Blake who was sentenced to 42 years' imprisonment. Even with his full remission his sentence would be reduced to 28 years, which means that when he left prison he would be over 70 years of age.
It seems that when one accepts the idea of the long-term sentence one takes away all hope and gives tremendous incentive to escape, especially to the intelligent, those who have friends and money outside. Is not that what has happened? Did it not happen in the case of Wilson, who had a 30-year sentence? I know full well the circumstances. I visited Winson Green Prison on that occasion, and I know how the prison officers feel. I have heard the term "warder" used in the House tonight. It is an old-fashioned term. We do not refer to "warders" now; they are prison officers, and the word "warder" seems to mean something entirely different.
One prison governor told me that when a prisoner comes in for a long-term sentence he is all right until his appeal is heard. When his sentence is still not reduced he can go on for four or five years and then he begins to deteriorate.

Mr. Oscar Murton: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the sentence given to Blake was too great? Does he condone a man who is a traitor to his country?

Mr. Victor Yates: I assure the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) and the House that of course I deplore the activities of a man like Blake. I certainly deplore the fact that he has escaped and I think that he is dangerous. But there are many others. When I heard of the escape of Straffen from Broadmoor I knew that probably within a few hours he would kill. I was right, for he killed a young child. I was deeply concerned

and so was the nation about that. But I want us to try to be realistic about this. How is one to deal with a prisoner who has had a sentence of 42 or 30 years? There is only one way to prevent a prisoner of this kind escaping and even that cannot be 100 per cent. certain. That is by subjecting him to conditions of torture.
I mean that. I went to the United States of America and visited the famous Alcatraz Prison. The first thing I saw was a woman speaking to her son through bullet-proof glass, and at every landing the prison officers were armed with guns. I said to the governor, "Well, of course, you will not get any escapes from a prison like this". He replied that——

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a very short debate and I am sure that every hon. Member wants to know the views of hon. Members about the inquiry into Blake's escape. I cannot really think that this is relevant.

Mr. William Hamling: Why not tell your right hon. and learned Friend? He took an hour.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a very short debate, but he is not out of order yet.

Mr. Yates: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not been speaking for very long, and I shall not speak for more than a minute or two longer. We are talking about the security of prisons, and it is very important to mention these conditions. Where there was the maximum security the governor of that prison had to tell me that no fewer than five prisoners had been shot while trying to escape. If right hon. and hon. Members want that they can have that kind of system, but we should resent it and resist it in this country. For 18 years I and other hon. Members have been pressing in the House for better staffs and for different conditions in prisons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting rather wide of the Motion. I hope that he will relate what he is saying to the need for an inquiry.

Mr. Hamling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Previous speakers


in the debate have spoken of these matters. Why should my hon. Friend be out of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not object to the hon. Gentleman referring to these matters. What he must not do is to discuss them at length. He must relate them to the Motion.

Mr. Yates: I do not want to discuss them at length, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In this House, we have over the years considered the question of security and the conditions in which prisoners live and work. We have many times suggested improvements, and some of them have been referred to tonight.
I have listened to every argument in this debate, but I know of no argument which can justify not having a general inquiry into the escapes of prisoners. It is such a very serious matter, and there are so many of them, that I applaud my right hon. Friend for what he is doing, in spite of the jeers and insults thrown across at him tonight. I hope that he will feel that he has very many friends who support the stand which he is making, even if someone boos him. After all, I remember Sir Winston Churchill being booed in this House, but he did not take that——

Mr. Hogg: Who booed him?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Your lot.

Mr. Yates: I shall not be led away by the insinuations which have been made against my right hon. Friend. I believe that he will come through with flying colours on this matter because he is determined—we support him on this side of the House—to carry out those reforms which right hon. and hon. Members opposite in 13 years of power did not carry out. He will carry them out now after a full and clear investigation into not only one case, however important, but into every case of escape. I wish him godspeed and every success in the effort which he is now making.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I believe that I have only three minutes in which to speak, but I want to get in as much as I can. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor

Yates) said that he had been in the House for 21 years. I have been here only seven years, but I find this the thinnest ground upon which I have ever heard a censure debate mounted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I appreciate the interjections, but they take time.
It was almost as though the Opposition Chief Whip said, "We were told at Blackpool that we have got to bash 'em, so let us put up Quintin to 'blow his top.' It will not matter if Duncan joins in, too, and we can bring Enoch back on to the Front Bench." What is of significance is that the Tory—[An HON. MEMBER: "The Brighton bomber again."]—I wish that these tribal noises would stop. They are evidence of un-suitability for majority rule.
The Tory Opposition have been saying two quite different things. They say in the Motion that they deplore that the Home Secretary has not
set up a specific inquiry to report as a matter of urgency on the escape of George Blake".
That is what they say—a specific inquiry into that and that alone. Yet on Monday last the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that he would settle either for a specific inquiry into that or for the matter to be included in the Mountbatten report. That appears in col. 655 of HANSARD. The same was said by the Leader of the Opposition.
What I thought disgraceful was the suggestion by the Solicitor-General. [An HON. MEMBER: "The former Solicitor-General."] Yes, the former Solicitor-General, though I shall come to his rôle as Solicitor-General in a few moments. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) seemed to suggest that Lord Mount-batten would not have the competence to go into these matters, either because there would be delay in his report, or—this was the implication—because he had not, perhaps, the judicial knowledge. This was the point mentioned by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).

Sir P. Rawlinson: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is confusing speeches. I never even referred to Lord Mountbatten.

Mr. Thorpe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is himself confused. He asked about five questions, most of


which were improper, and wanted a reply from the Home Secretary, suggesting that these ought to be matters specifically inquired into. The implication, as he will see if he reads his words, is that Lord Mountbatten has not the competence.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall his own legal prowess as Solicitor-General in a room downstairs. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the Home Secretary was inadequate for his task, he might perhaps suggest to himself that at the time of the Profumo cross-examination he was inadequate for his task.
I believe that the Mountbatten inquiry is perfectly competent to go into the specific events relating to Blake's escape. It will be open to them to produce an interim report on that matter. If the Home Secretary can hold out hope on both those matters, he will meet the point raised last Monday by the Opposition and they therefore have no right, unless they are being hypocritical, to divide the House.
There are already four inquiries afoot in regard to these matters. There is, first, the report which is made on each escape which is made to the Home Secretary. I would like to ask the Home Secretary for that to be published. There is, secondly, the review of the allocation of prisoners between prisons. Thirdly, there is Mr. Richard Lewis, who has been looking into the question of security generally. Will that run parallel with the Mountbatten report? There is, finally, the Mountbatten report itself.
I believe that the Mountbatten inquiry will produce an interim report on the situation relating to Blake's escape. I believe that they are competent to do so. The Motion of the Opposition not only contradicts what they themselves asked for on Monday last, but is thoroughly hypocritical and I wish the Home Secretary luck.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It must be almost without precedent—it is certainly very rare—that a right hon. Gentleman against whom a Motion of censure has been moved should sit through virtually the whole of a three-hour debate without either himself seeking to reply or any of his colleagues

replying on his behalf, so that the House is unable, during the debate, to consider the defence he has to offer.
That reticence and reluctance on the part of the Home Secretary has been characteristic of his behaviour throughout this whole matter since the events of 22nd October. When he came to this House a week ago it was perfectly clear that the one point in the whole investigation to which he did not attach particular importance was the very event which had given rise to his statement.
The right hon. Gentleman told the House, for instance, that
it will certainly be perfectly competent for the
Mountbatten
inquiry to look into the circumstances".
Again, the right hon. Gentleman said:
Lord Mountbatten and his inquiry can look into any matter, including the escape of Blake",
as though that were a minor, incidental matter, a question of take it or leave it. The right hon. Gentleman had no intention, he told the House,
of excluding anything which Lord Mountbatten wishes to look into in relation to the Blake case or any other case.
Finally, in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), he said:
This can certainly be done".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1966: Vol. 734, c. 650–5.]
The whole attitude of the right hon. Gentleman throughout those questions and answers a week ago was that there was nothing special, nothing which called for any special inquiry or notice in the circumstances of the Blake escape. Even when, as night had fallen, the right hon. Gentleman produced the terms of reference of the Mountbatten inquiry, it was still perfectly obvious that he had failed to recognise the special, separate and overwhelmingly important character of the matter into which the Motion asks for an inquiry.
Even in the terms of reference—
To inquire into recent prison escapes, with particular reference to that of George Blake, and to make recommendations for the improvement of prison security"—
the accent was upon the general problem. The whole purport of it was a refusal to recognise the special problem,


the special nature of what had taken place. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the public are not so incurious as he is. They will want enlightenment—even if that enlightenment does not bring reassurance—as to what happened and why it could happen. For this event was the climax of a crescendo of events which had given rise to mounting public anxiety.
It was in May, 1961, that Blake went to prison. From that time, until the spring of 1964, he passed out of public ken, and, so far as I know, out of very much reference in public discussion. In May, 1964, however, in connection with the exchange of Lonsdale with Wynne, allegations were made, and were made publicly, that Lonsdale had improperly, and unwisely for security, been in contact with Blake at an early stage in his incarceration. This was a matter which the right hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) took up—quite properly took up—in this House with considerable vigour.
The then Opposition probed the question whether, in fact, this security risk, even three years earlier, had been incurred. I do not know whether they were satisfied, but at any rate one would have assumed that one point on their agenda on coming into office five months later, a point on the right hon. Lady's agenda, would have been to satisfy themselves as to the security arrangements relating to that one of this pair of spies and traitors who still remained in prison.
Then, in August of 1964, there was the Winson Green Gaol break, engineered from outside, which must have alerted—we have heard from my right hon. and learned Friend this afternoon that it did alert—the Home Office to the danger of prisoners, particularly long-term prisoners, being rescued by machinations from outside. It certainly alerted the public to that danger. I presume that it alerted hon. and right hon. Members opposite who are in office today. I shall come back presently to what the Foreign Secretary had to say upon that.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Who was Home Secretary at the time?

Mr. Powell: By the following year, by 1965, it had become obvious, and a

matter of general public comment, that the level of prison escapes in general was running at numbers far above those which had been experienced in the past. For example, the totals in 1964 and 1965 were roughly double what they had been in 1962.
But this was merely a general background. There were special warnings to be alert about Blake and about Wormwood Scrubs. In March, 1965, a discharged prisoner made circumstantial statements about plots and contrivances to secure the escape of the prisoner Blake. I understand that the fact that these were brought to the attention of the authorities, and were indeed investigated, is not in dispute, but, whether investigated or not, and whatever was the result of the investigation, the then Home Secretary in the present Administration, as well as the public, were alerted to the fact that this exceptionally important long-term prisoner in Wormwood Scrubs was bound to be the object of attempts to organise his escape.
On top of this, in July, 1965, came, during the period of office of the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he did say "in 1965". I take it that, in step with his right hon. and learned Friend, he meant in 1964—in March, 1964.

Mr. Powell: I had in mind allegations which were published in the Press on 7th March, 1965, and which, I understand, were the subject of an investigation. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman can check that, but the number of occasions and the volume of evidence of the risk are such that one or two could easily be jettisoned or overlooked without the strength of the case being affected materially.
It was in July, 1965, under the present Administration, that a gaol break took place from Wandsworth Prison, again involving one of the long-term prisoners concerned in the train robbery. Here again, if it were needed, was a warning to the Home Office and to the prison service of the special dangers attaching in contemporary circumstances to long-term prisoners, even those who were not so dangerous or of such a character as the prisoner Blake.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose——

Mr. Powell: I have very little time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
Then, in the early months of 1966, a remarkable event occurred. It occurred during the course of the investigation by the Press Council of a report which had been published in July, 1965. by the Daily Sketch concerning a letter and a prison magazine emanating from Wormwood Scrubs. In a letter to the Press Council dated 21st April, 1966, the Home Office produced its account of the way in which a prison magazine of which one page was forged—and I will come to the word "forged" in a moment—had been produced and sent out of the prison with a covering letter to an organ of the Press.
This is the Home Office letter to the Press Council:
It appears that the perpetrator must have recovered the stencil of page 20 after the official issue of the magazine had been run off"—
[Laughter.] Hon. Members will not chuckle in a moment—
and, with access to the magazine office in which the typewriter, duplicating and stapling machines, and spare copies of loose pages are all available, he has been able to produce a copy of the magazine with an amended page 20 but in all other respects identical to the official issue.
The material point which, I presume, cannot have escaped the attention of the Home Office is that in this piratically produced copy of the prison magazine there was one page only in which there occurred any difference, and that difference consisted only of the substitution, for the words, "By the Humanist Group", as the by-line of an article entitled "Knaves and Fools", of the name "George Blake".
Someone in Wormwood Scrubs had been able, and had thought it worth while, to take all the danger that was involved, in order to produce a copy of the magazine in which the sole difference was that the name of George Blake appeared on page 20, and send it out of the prison under cover of a letter which drew specific though, apparently, incidental attention to just that page 20.
It would be a curious Home Office and a curious prison service which such a discovery as that did not give furiously

to think, and did not draw attention to the fact, if they had needed attention to be drawn to it, that there was in that prison a man serving a 42-year sentence, a traitor and a spy who was an escape risk.
But then it went on. In June, 1966, on top of this, from this very prison, Wormwood Scrubs, four prisoners escaped. Even the uninquisitiveness of the right hon. Gentleman was a little shaken by that. He actually went to the prison and suggested certain measures which might be taken to render the prison more secure. Alas, none of these had been taken—not even those which could have been taken almost instantly had been accomplished, or, so far as we yet know, even started—before 22nd October, when George Blake escaped.
But this climax to the crescendo concerned no ordinary man. It did not concern some long-term prisoner whose interest in getting out was presumably to enjoy his ill-gotten gains as far as possible in peace, or to pursue his ordinary criminal activities outside again. No, this time it concerned a man who had been consigned to prison for 42 years by the courts of this country as a most dangerous enemy of his country, a man whose object——

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose——

Hon. Members: Give way !

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to give way, he does not have to do so.

Mr. Powell: It concerned a man who would have only one object if he escaped from prison, and that would be to damage this country to the utmost of his ability, and who, even if it be true, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, that in matters of specific information he had no more to give, nobody can deny is a dangerous and damaging enemy of this country to have at large.
Within a day or two of those events we were able to read that "on the instructions of the Home Secretary the location of all prisoners undergoing sentences in connection with activities against the State has been reviewed, and as a result of this review several transfers have been made". Nineteen sixty-four, 1965, 1966, the mounting crescendo and


then the climax, and after the climax the Home Secretary—[An HON. MEMBER: "Anti-climax?"] yes, indeed, an anti-climax—institutes a review as a result of which these prisoners whose danger, whose liability to escape has been known throughout this period on mounting evidence, are rearranged.
What the public want to know, and they want to know it in relation to this case, and in relation to this course of events, is how this thing could have happened. It is utterly inadequate, it utterly fails to comprehend the anxiety in this country, for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to try to tie it up with a general inquiry into prison escapes.
When the escape of the train robber from Winson Green took place in August, 1964, a comment was made on that event by the right hon. Gentleman, then speaking for the Opposition, who is now the Foreign Secretary. He made clear then in what mind the party opposite would be on entering into office if it won the then election. He said:
Just a few years ago almost any one of these messes "—
referring, amongst others, to that gaol break—
would have been regarded as sufficient of a scandal for the Minister to take personal responsibility.
The right hon. Gentleman has frankly and candidly admitted his personal responsibility. But his right hon. Friend went on to say what it would mean to take personal responsibility for such an event as that—one far inferior in its danger and importance, to the one we are considering tonight. He said:
That would have meant the offer of his resignation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): It has been said before.

Mr. Powell: It will bear saying a good many more times. We are not at this moment asking for the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—not as yet, but we are asking for the very least that can satisfy the legitimate demands of the public and of the nation. That is that there should be a separate, specific and urgent inquiry into the course of events which first pointed to

Blake as a risk and pointed to Wormwood Scrubs as a risky place of incarceration for Blake, and into the supine incurious-ness on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, of his Department, and of the Government, which has resulted in a disgrace that will long redound to the discredit of this country and its administration.

9.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for The Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): This Motion has been described by The Times as "somewhat trumped up", and by the Spectator as "not very sensible", and has been treated even by the Daily Telegraph with a good degree of scepticism. After listening to the debate tonight I can add another comment, namely, that the Motion is extraordinarily badly drafted—a typical product of the Parliamentary ineptitude of the right hon. Member for Bexhill (Mr. Heath)—so badly drafted that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) was forced to make almost the whole of his extremely long speech well outside its terms. That has applied to a great part of the debate that we have had so far.
I propose to deal first with those points which are a little outside the direct terms of the Motion, and then go to the direct issue of the Motion in the latter part of my speech. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, who indulged in a good deal of hyperbole, particularly in the latter part of his speech, excelled himself when he said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had exposed this country in a way which was without comparison under the previous Administration. I have in my hand a list of security scandals so long that it would take me most of the rest of the debate to read them. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Blake?"] I will come to Blake, and I shall deal with him in great detail. I shall also deal with the other points that have been raised.
I start with the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). He—and to some extent, the right hon. and learned Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson)—implied, as he did last Monday, that I was personally responsible because my policy on capital and corporal punishment had produced low numbers and unwillingness to do their duty on the part of prison


and police officers. First, on numbers, the premise is simply untrue. Of course, we could do with more in both services, but recruitment in both services has been running well.
In the police, for the first nine months of this year, recruitment less wastage was 1,313. For the first nine months of 1964, the last period when right hon. and hon. Members opposite had responsibility, recruitment less wastage was 382. For prison officers, for the first nine months of this year, recruitment less wastage was 238. For the first nine months of 1964, it was 219.
Secondly, there is the less precise but more serious implication that these officers are not doing their job properly. What is the charge—that I did not confirm the birching sentence on Maxwell or that Parliament has abolished capital punishment? Let us look briefly at what is involved.
First, I had a unanimous report from four doctors—three in the prison service, one visiting—who examined Maxwell, who said that he was a psychopath and that birching would do him no good and might well make him worse. Is it suggested that I should have completely ignored those reports? I had not the slightest doubt that my duty was to act on them. But, apart from my own clear judgment, I had a letter from the right hon. Member from Bexley urging me to take no action until I had considered these reports. I presume that he was urging delay, not for the sake of delay, but in order that I might act on the reports. Therefore, I hope that he will make his position clear.

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandys rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if the Minister does not give way he must not persist.

Mr. Sandys: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he has completely lost the confidence of the police and the prison service?

Mr. Jenkins: That is a typically disgraceful and totally unfounded suggestion. Totally unable to sustain his case in argument, the right hon. Gentleman resorts to slur without anything to substantiate it.
Still dealing with the right hon. Gentleman, I turn to the more serious proposition

about capital punishment. My own views are known to the House. But it is no personal policy which I am carrying out. I am carrying out the law of the land as passed by both Houses of Parliament within the last year. If the right hon. Member for Streatham thinks that the House has changed its mind, he will have his opportunity to test the matter on 23rd November. But to suggest, in the meantime, that a body of public servants will not do their duty because they do not like the law is, in my view, a contemptible slander on these officers and a constitutional doctrine of frightening irresponsibility.

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandys rose——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister does not intend to give way. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) must, therefore, not remain on his feet.

Mr. Jenkins: I certainly have no intention of giving way, merely to enable the right hon. Member for Streatham to repeat, in a slightly more offensive way but in even less convincing terms, what he said before.

Sir Knox Cunningham: What about Blake?

Mr. Jenkins: I am coming fully to Blake in a moment, but I surely have the right to deal with the points made by the right hon. Member for Streatham.

Mr. Sandys: Mr. Sandys rose——

Mr. Jenkins: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the right hon. Member for Streatham to remain standing will not make the Minister give way.

Mr. Jenkins: If that is to be the constitutional doctrine, we will have foreign policy made by generals and defence policy made by arms manufacturers; and this House might as well give up any attempt at being a deliberative assembly or any of us believing in the sovereignty of Parliament. I cannot for a moment believe that the Front Bench opposite accepts this point of view, and if the right hon. Member for Bexley were not so frightened of his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham he would get to his feet—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker wants to hear the cut and thrust of debate.

Hon. Members: What about Blake?

Mr. Jenkins: If the hon. Members opposite will give up their tribal bleating I will immediately come to Blake. I turn straight away—

Mr. F. A. Burden: Calm yourself down a little.

Mr. Jenkins: I turn immediately to what I have been trying to deal with for the last couple of minutes and would have dealt with but for the interventions. I come to the question of whether Blake should have been kept at Wormwood Scrubs, a central though not directly relevant issue to the Motion. I do not approach the House with any desire to argue that everything has been perfectly ordered in the past, either in my time or during the terms of office of my predecessors. Clearly, with the benefit of hindsight every one of us would wish that Blake had been kept in another prison.
If that were not my view I would not have taken the steps which I thought necessary this week; to re-allocate the other spies we have in custody. Nor would I have undertaken an urgent review of all security prisoners, and that review is nearly complete. I am bound to say, however, that if I am to listen to lectures on this subject, the last source from which they should come is from representatives of the Conservative Party. [Interruption.]
What is the history of this matter? The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone challenged some of my facts and tried to give some more of his own. I will, therefore, deal with this matter, and I must deal with it in some detail. On 3rd May, 1961, Blake was received into Wormwood Scrubs and, in accordance with the normal practice for prisoners serving long sentences, was at first located in the hospital. On 29th June he was allocated to Wormwood Scrubs as a star prisoner—that is, a prisoner with a long sentence but without a previous criminal record—and was moved to the local wing and placed on the escape list. On 3rd October of the same year he was taken off the escape list and moved to D Wing, where he remained until nine days ago.
Those decisions were all taken at a time when, for reasons which will be obvious to the House, the loss of Blake would have been considerably more damaging from the security point of view than can be the case today. They were all taken when Lord Butler was Home Secretary. Were it not for the violently partisan terms of several of this evening's speeches, I would not have thought it necessary or desirable to underline that point but, in the circumstances, I most certainly do.
Further, I saw last week that Lord Butler had announced from Cambridge that Blake ought to have been in Parkhurst. I always read Lord Butler's reflections in retirement with great interest, and often with admiration, but I must say on this occasion that if Lord Butler thought that Blake should have been in Parkhurst it is a great pity he did not put Blake there.
I now go on a little from Lord Butler's time to the time of his successor, Lord Brooke, as he now is. In the autumn of 1963, the question of Blake's possible transfer was raised by the security service, but it was decided, after full consultation with that service, that it was better to leave him where he was. I should say that, contrary to certain allegations that have been widely made, there has throughout been the fullest contact between the prison department and the security service about Blake's location.
Then, in April, 1964—and I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was a little confused about his dates here, but the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone was not—a possible plot to rescue Blake was disclosed to the Governor of Wormwood Scrubs by another prisoner—in April, 1964. That plot was investigated and was held to be without foundation but, as a result, Blake's location was again discussed with the security service, and at that stage came to the personal attention of the Home Secretary of the day.

The question was then raised whether Blake should be moved, but it was decided, after full consultation, that he should be left where he was. The decision was taken in June, 1964. He was left where he was. He was not put back on the escape list——

Sir Cyril Osborne: He did not escape, either.

Mr. Jenkins: —and to suggest in view of that clear history, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did, that because Mr. Brooke subsequently wrote it would be a pity if Blake escaped, he had thereby made bold decisions for the future seems to me to be a most extraordinary proposition——

Mr. Hogg: I do not want to interrupt the Home Secretary—he is extremely courteous to give way—but will he confirm or otherwise what I said in my opening, and I thought that I had announced these facts with perfect candour, and tell the House whether it was true that at the time when Mr. Brooke made his decision to put Blake under a constant watch? What I asked the right hon. Gentleman was when that was relaxed, and why the question of his location had not been reconsidered then.

Mr. Jenkins: I was coming to precisely that point. I cannot tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman when the special restrictions imposed in 1964 were relaxed, for the very good reason that there were no special restrictions.

Mr. Hogg: I again thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, but I spoke to Lord Brooke today and got his express assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Does not this prove the necessity for an inquiry?

Mr. Jenkins: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has at last been able to deliver one sentence—[Interruption.]—even directly relevant to the Motion. I am coming to this point, and I am answering precisely the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. There were no special restrictions imposed in 1964, even when the escape plot was investigated, and when the question of Blake's further location was discussed and brought up to the Home Secretary personally, but when no move took place.
Blake accordingly remained at Wormwood Scrubs, entered his fourth, fifth and sixth year of confinement and continued to gain—no doubt with design as we now see—the reputation of a model prisoner. No further allegations relating to a Blake escape were discovered by the

authorities. However, it would be quite wrong to assume that this led to any slackening of the restrictions. There was no tightening in 1964 and no slackening afterwards. The special restrictions continued to apply to him relating to visits and correspondence and a change of work this year resulted in slightly greater supervision during working hours. That was the only change.
That is the history, but there is one further aspect of the case with which I should perhaps deal. It is the suggestion that the escapes from Wormwood Scrubs in June—this was put by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—created a new situation so far as Blake was concerned and that these in themselves made the need for a move obvious. But these were not the first escapes from Wormwood Scrubs. There were six in 1961 the year when Lord Butler allowed Blake to be sent there, and there had been no fewer than 12 from Wormwood Scrubs in 1959. There was another escape in 1962, three in 1963 and two in the early part of 1964. These last escapes applied over the exact period when Blake's case was being reviewed by a previous Home Secretary in the last Government who decided not to move him. The June escapes therefore were not a new factor.
Let me put the prison escapes of recent months into proper perspective. There are far too many in my view and we must give top priority to the question of reducing them. That is one reason why I have given the Mountbatten inquiry its wider remit and have appointed an electronics expert to serve on this inquiry. I was impressed by what I saw in the United States last month of how modern methods can make a big impact here, but this is not a question of the last few months; the problem has been with us for some time. From closed prisons, which is what really counts, prisoners who succeeded in escaping numbered in 1961, 114; in 1962, 56; in 1963, 71; in 1964, 93; in 1965, 79; and in the first 10 months of 1966, 67. The striking change is not in the figures, but that we are now doing something about them.
I come to the exact issue posed in the Motion which, for somewhat understandable reasons in view of the way in


which it was drafted, has figured singularly little in the debate. The Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friends have used the somewhat portentious weapon of a personal Motion of censure because, as they say, I have refused to set up a specific inquiry to report as a matter of urgency on the escape of George Blake. That is the complaint in the Motion. I am not at the moment concerned with the other reasons which the Opposition have trumped up in the last week, although it is interesting to see their constant change of ground as reported in the Press. The complaint in the Motion is that the inquiry is not specific and not urgent. There is no truth in either limb of that attack. The Mount-batten Inquiry is specifically, although not exclusively, charged with investigating the Blake escape. That is made as clear as it can be in the terms of reference.
I ask the House to consider for a moment what the Opposition would have said if last Monday in the House I had announced two inquiries. Would that have satisfied them? What talk there would have been of government by inquiry, a shuffling off of responsibility, a multiplicity of bodies being set up.
As for urgency, the Mountbatten Inquiry has already begun work and is dealing first and specifically with the Blake escape. Lord Mountbatten and his assessors are already considering the preliminary reports. They will be at Wormwood Scrubs on Wednesday of this week and they will follow up with complete determination to uncover everything that can be uncovered, and they will not hesitate to apportion blame to any system or person, whether they be Ministers or officials, to whom they think blame attaches. If they think a separate and earlier report is called for, they will produce one; and it will be published. But in any event, they plan to complete their whole task by the end of the year, and it will be one of the most urgent independent investigations on record.
Ought we to have used the tribunal of inquiry procedure? That is not mentioned in the Motion; it is purely an afterthought on the part of the Opposition, but it has been mentioned in the debate tonight several times. There are several reasons why I do not think this

would have been appropriate. First, it is a procedure which is open to many objections, as was recognised by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition last week, while accepting that it had nevertheless to be used in the case of the Aberfan disaster. It is a procedure which should certainly be used only sparingly. Mr. Harold Macmillan made it quite clear in November, 1962, that he came to use it in the Vassal case only when allegations that a member of the Government was planning to assist the defection of Vassal came to his notice. We are confronted with no remotely comparable situation here.
Secondly, the procedure is by no means an expeditious one. A great deal of preliminary work has to be done. The Vassal Tribunal took five months. The Mountbatten Inquiry will do the job far more quickly, by the end of the year, and will be much more urgent.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his statement this afternoon, Blake's escape should not result in further damage to national security, but should any point touching national security be uncovered in the course of Lord Mountbatten's work the issue would be dealt with separately.
The Prime Minister, as he indicated this afternoon, would discuss with the Leader of the Opposition the most appropriate mechanism. Equally, if it emerges in the course of Lord Mountbatten's Inquiry or in the course of the police investigation that somebody has committed a crime in assisting Blake in his escape, then it will be for the police to prepare a case and to bring it before the courts for trial.
On grounds of both urgency and specificness, therefore, this Motion, as the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said, is one of the thinnest ever to come before the House. So thin is it, indeed, that we are bound to ask some questions about its genesis.
At approximately 3.55 last Monday afternoon, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone asked me for an assurance that Blake's escape could be made an integral part of the Mountbatten Inquiry. I told him I thought that could be done. Within a little more than two hours, at the earliest moment at which Lord Mountbatten could reach London, I agreed the terms of reference


with him. They fully met the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Without waiting for the end of my meeting with Lord Mountbatten, I had those terms of reference published. They went out from the Press Association at 6.56 and were on the tapes at 7.12. They were presumably available to the Opposition within a few minutes.
But the Leader of the Opposition was determined to press a niggling party point. At the end of the exchanges in the afternoon, he had suffered a complete Parliamentary humiliation. He had drafted in his own hand a most egregious Adjournment Motion. He then sent his right hon. and learned Friend to Mr. Speaker as the messenger of his folly. He might at least have gone himself. Two hours later he was still smarting under this humiliation; so much so that he either could not or would not understand that his right hon. and learned Friend's point had in fact been fully met. So he insisted on tabling this Motion which, in so far as it means anything at all, is about as much of a vote of censure on his own Shadow Home Secretary as it is upon me; for it complains of my

having done exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to do.

I therefore ask the House to reject this trumped up Motion. The Blake case is of course a most serious matter. Nobody can know that better than I do. We certainly have on our hands a real problem of prison security. I believe that this problem will be met by the constructive measures we are taking, and taking quickly; but it will not be met by that combination of procedural incompetence and petty partisanship which is the constant characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary style.

Sir Charles Taylor: Sir Charles Taylor (Eastbourne) rose——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 331.

Division No. 191.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cordle, John
Grant, Anthony


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Corfield, F. V.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Astor, John
Costain, A. P.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Grieve, Percy


Awdry, Daniel
Crawley, Aidan
Gurden, Harold


Baker, W. H. K.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Balniel, Lord
Crouch, David
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Crowder, F. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Batsford, Brian
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Bell, Ronald
Currie, G. B. H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bennett, Or. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Dance, James
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Bitten, John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Hastings, Stephen


Biggs-Davison, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hawkins, Paul


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hay, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Blaker, Peter
Doughty, Charles
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Body, Richard
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Higgins, Terence L.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Drayson, G. B.
Hiley, Joseph


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, J. E. B.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Eden, Sir John
Hirst, Geoffrey


Braine, Bernard
Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Brewis, John
Errington, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Eyre, Reginald
Holland, Philip


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Farr, John
Hordern, Peter


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fisher, Nigel
Hornby, Richard


Bryan, Paul
Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Foster, Sir John
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Burden, F. A.
Gibson-Watt, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Campbell, Gordon
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Carlisle, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Channon, H. P. G.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Sir Richard
Jopling, Michael


Clark, Henry
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Clegg, Walter
Goodhart, Philip
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cooke, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Cooper-Key, Sit Neill
Gower, Raymond
Kimball, Marcus




King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Murton, Oscar
Scott, Nicholas


Kirk, Peter
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sharples, Richard


Kitson, Timothy
Neave, Airey
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Knight. Mrs. Jill
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sinclair, Sir George


Lambton, Viscount
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, John


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nott, John
Stainton, Keith


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley
Stodart, Anthony


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Talbot, John E.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Tapsell, Peter


Longden, Gilbert
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Loveys, W. H.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


MacArthur, Ian
Peel, John
Temple, John M.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Percival, Ian
Thatcher. Mr. Margaret


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Peyton, John
Tilney, John


McMaster, Stanley
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maddan, Martin
Pounder, Rafton
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maginnis, John E.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Marten, Neil
Prior, J. M. L.
Wall, Patrick


Mathew, Robert
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Weatherill, Bernard


Maude, Angus
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Webster, David


Mawby, Ray
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Whitelaw, William


Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wilts, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mills, Stratum (Belfast, N.)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mlscampbell, Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodnutt, Mark


Monro, Hector
Roots, William
Worsley, Marcus


More, Jasper
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Younger, Hn. George


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Royle, Anthony



Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Russell, Sir Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mott-Radcliffe, Sir Charles
St. Jahn-Stevas, Norman
Mr. Francis Pym and


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Mr. R. W. Elliott.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Butler. Mr. Joyce (Wood Green)
English, Michael


Albu, Austen
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Ennals, David


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cant, R. B.
Ensor, David


Alldritt, Walter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Anderson, Donald
Chapman, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Archer, Peter
Coe, Denis
Fernyhough, E.


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Finch, Harold


Ashley, Jack
Concannon, J. D.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Corbet, Mr. Freda
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bacon, Rt. Hns. Alice
Crawshaw, Richard
Floud, Bernard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cronin, John
Foley, Maurice


Barnes, Michael
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Barnett, Joel
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Baxter, William
Cullen. Mrs. Alice
Ford, Ben


Beaney, Alan
Dalyell, Tam
Forrester, John


Bence, Cyril
Darting, Rt. Hn. George
Fowler, Gerry


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)


Bessell, Peter
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bidwell, Sydney
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gardner, Tony


Binns, John
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Garrett, W. E.


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Carrow, Alex


Blackburn, F.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Gourlay, Harry


Boardman, H.
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Booth, Albert
Delargy, Hugh
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Boston, Terence
Dell, Edmund
Gregory, Arnold


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dempsey, James
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Dewar, Donald
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Boyden, James
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Braddock. Mr. E. M.
Dickens, James
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.


Bradley, Tom
Dobson, Ray
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Doig, Peter
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Brooks, Edwin
Driberg, Tom
Hamilton, William


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dunn, James A.
Harper, Joseph


Brown, Bob (N "c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Dunnett, Jack
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Brown, Rt. Hn, George (Belper)
Dunwoody. Mr. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hart. Mrs. Judith


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Haseldine, Norman


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Eadie, Alex
Hattersley, Roy


Buchan, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hazell, Bert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ellis, John
Heffer, Eric S.







Henig, Stanley
Marion, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rose, Paul


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Hilton, W. S.
Manuel, Archie
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mapp, Charles
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hooley, Frank
Marquand, David
Ryan, John


Hooson, Emlyn
Mason, Roy
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Horner, John
Maxwell, Robert
Sheldon, Robert


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mellish, Robert
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mendelson, J. J.
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Howell, Dens (Small Heath)
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Howie, W.
Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Hoy, James
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Molloy, William
Skeffington, Arthur


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moonman, Eric
Slater, Joseph


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Snow, Julian


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hynd, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stonehouse, John


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Murray, Albert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Janner, Sir Bamett
Neal, Harold
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan
Swain, Thomas


Jeger, George (Goole)
Norwood, Christopher
Swingler, Stephen


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Cakes, Gordon
Taverne, Dick


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ogden, Eric
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
O'Malley, Brian
Thornton, Ernest


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orbach, Maurice
Thorpe, Jeremy


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orme, Stanley
Tinn, James


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Oswald, Thomas
Tomney, Frank


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Tuck, Raphael


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Varley, Eric G.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Padley, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Kelley, Richard
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Kenyon, Clifford
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kerr. Mr. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Wallace, George


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pardoe, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Park, Trevor
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Ledger, Ron
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Weitzman, David


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)
Wellbeloved, James


Lee, John (Reading)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pavitt, Laurence
Whitaker, Ben


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
White. Mr. Eirene


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Whitlock, William


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Pentland Norman
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Lipton, Marcus
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lomas, Kenneth
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Loughlin, Charles
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Luard, Evan
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Lubbock, Eric
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams. Mr. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Probert, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


McBride, Neil
Rankin, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


McCann, John
Redhead, Edward
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


MacColl, James
Rees, Merlyn
Winnick, David


MacDermot, Niall
Reynolds, G. W.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Macdonald, A. H.
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


McGuire, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


McKay. Mr. Margaret
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Yates, Victor


Mackie, John
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Zilliacus, K.


Mackintosh, John P.
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'cas)



Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rodgers. William (Stockton)
Mr. Charles Grey and


McNamara, J. Kevin
Roebuck, Roy
Mr. George Lawson.


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (TORBAY)

10.11 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl) rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly?

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move,
That the Torbay Order 1966, dated 1st August, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.
The purpose of this Order is to set out a new pattern of local government as recommended by the Local Government Commission for the three towns around Torbay. It creates a new county borough for the area by amalgamating almost the whole of the Borough of Torquay and urban district of Paignton, together with the built-up part of Brixham urban district and some small adjoining areas in the rural districts of Newton Abbot and Totnes. The present arrangements under which that area is administered are partly by a county council, a borough council, two urban district councils, two rural district councils and three parish councils, and all this will be replaced by one single administration.
It may help the House to have a picture of the timetable of this operation. It began in the autumn of 1959 when the Local Government Commission began the south-western review. In July, 1961, the Commission prepared draft proposals and in November of that year held its statutory consultations. In February, 1963, it produced its final report. In October, there was a public inquiry ordered by my right hon. Friend who is now the Lord President of the Council. In June, 1965, my right hon. Friend made his decision. Thus, from the beginning until the final decision—we now have this Order dated August, 1966—seven years have been taken to complete the operation, and it will be another 18 months before the council is in full operation.
In the beginning, the Commission was against the idea of a county borough but, after its statutory consultations, it changed its mind, largely, I think, for two reasons. First, the Commission was strengthened in its appraisal by the in-

initiative of the three local authorities and the support of local organisations in tackling together the commission problems of the area. Moreover, it saw that the population would increase. In fact, the population has gone up by almost 12 per cent. in the last six years, and, by 1968, when the new county borough is timed to begin, it will be almost 102,000, together with the influx of summer visitors, which adds about 60 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Lord President took the same view. In the words of the decision letter,
It seems to him that there would be a real advantage in establishing here a local government structure which would express the growing unity of the Torbay district and would encourage the planning and development of the area as a tourist centre of national importance.
In this impressive consensus of agreement, there were what I might call peripheral shadows. The Commission's proposals included four parts of parishes—Marldon, Churston Ferrers, Kings-kerswell and Coffinswell. These were all against coming in and the boundary has now been drawn to exclude the villages of Marldon and Kingskerswell. The decision letter cut out Coffinswell.
Unfortunately, Churston Ferrers is in a different position. In the words of the inspector,
Churston Ferrers must be part of the county borough if county borough there is to be.
It is therefore fair to say that my right hon. Friend has done all he could to found the new county borough on an essentially voluntary association.
The first question which I should like to explore with the House is whether the new borough is viable. It has a rateable value per head of about £50. This compares very favourably with many county boroughs of similar size. Solihull, for example, a new county borough and of about the same size, has a rateable value of about £44 a head, which is substantially lower.
It has been argued that the cost of running this county borough will be excessive. It was suggested that the change would reduce the county administration cost by £13,000 and increase the Torbay costs by £97,000, a net increased burden of £84,000. All this was deployed in argument at considerable


length at the inquiry. I need only quote the comment of the inspector, who said:
I therefore think that the present estimates, although made, I hasten to add, in perfectly good faith, like all similar ones must be regarded with tolerant scepticism.
The next and very important question is whether Devon in its new form is viable. One of the major arguments against the Order was that it would leave a rump of a county with its main urban strength severed. It is only fair to look at the matter in conjunction with the other proposals for Plymouth and Exeter and look at their effect as a whole.
The Commission concluded that the county would be left a strong and effective instrument of local government. Devon will have a population of 419,000. This is about the middle of the population table for English counties. Its rateable value per head will drop from £35 to £31, but this will be more, for example, than Norfolk, a comparable county with a big area and a modest population.
Another major objection to the Order is that it creates a new and not very large county borough just as the Royal Commission starts its review. It was a complex and difficult matter for my right hon. Friend to decide where to draw the line, whether to scrub out everything which had not been brought to legislation or to accept decisions already made.
The decision letter was issued in June, 1965, eight months before the setting-up of the Royal Commission was announced. My right hon. Friend said on 10th February:
Where decisions have been already announced on proposals by the Commission, the necessary orders will be brought before Parliament as soon as possible. Other proposals on which decisions have not yet been taken will be considered on their merits, in the light of the decision to appoint a Royal Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1966; Vol. 724, c. 644.]
We have not departed from those principles laid down by my right hon. Friend.
Torbay has another claim for consideration that the Order should be allowed to go through. The decision letter implied that the changes should be made on 1st April, 1967. The three councils were anxious to get on. I had much difficulty myself in persuading them of the wisdom of waiting for a year and I think they would have very great cause

for complaint if they were now frustrated because they accepted this advice that these proceedings should be delayed so that they could make a better job of it eventually.
I should like to go quickly through the main points in the Order, but before doing so I should like to say this, because it is quite clear that the county council has been strongly opposed to, and has doubted the wisdom of, what is now being suggested, but, of course, it has co-operated fully in the detailed preparations of the material for the Order. It behaved as one would expect a democratic, responsible body, which it is, to behave, and my right hon. Friend the present Minister is extremely appreciative of the way it has done this.
The new county borough will come into full operation on the day appointed by the Order; that is, 1st April, 1968, as I say, a year later than the original proposal in the decision letter. Article 5 makes the changes in local authority areas. In addition to specifying the areas which will make up the county borough it provides for the transfer of areas which are consequential and incidental to the main purpose of the Order. For example, the rural part of Brixham Urban District is transferred to Totnes Rural District.
Articles 6, 8 and 9 make the electoral arrangements. The new wards described in the borough's charter reflect the Home Secretary's acceptance of proposals by the existing authorities for 12 wards and a council of 36 councillors and 12 aldermen. Elections for the new county borough council are to be held on the basis of those wards in May, 1967. The new council will have almost a year in which to complete its final arrangements such as the organisation of services and the appointment of the staff in readiness for the assumption of full responsibility on 1st April, 1968, when the councils of Torquay, Brixham and Paignton, and the Parish Council of Churston Ferrers, will be dissolved.
Article 9 cancels the elections which would otherwise have been held in May, 1967, for a third of the Torquay Borough Council, and the councils of Brixham and Paignton. The 1967 election of county councillors for the county electoral divisions which will be abolished in 1968 are


also cancelled. These arrangements have been agreed with the local authorities.
Articles 11 to 14 make the consequential changes in the administration of justice to bring the arrangements into line with the revised local government areas. Other parts of the Order facilitate the transfer of functions—for example, education, health and welfare, planning and housing—and make provision for the transfer of property, assets and liabilities. The staff, who are affected by this reorganisation, are given protection by Article 66, which follows well-precedented provisions. Superannuation rights are safeguarded.
I commend this Order to the House. It is time to end the uncertainties and delays which inevitably have accompanied the protracted discussions. The changes will not seriously weaken the county. In the words of the Local Government Commission,
The proposed county borough of Torbay is an imaginative proposal which, with the assured good will of so many who are concerned, could have far reaching effects on both the standard of services and in the future prosperity of the area as a whole.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: The imaginative proposals which the hon. Gentleman has just recommended to the House are of the nature which one would associate with anything intended to be done on All Fools' Day in 1968 or any other year. The Minister has brought in an Order which he has emphasised has the eventual blessing of the Boundaries Commission, a body whose recommendations in the third member of the trio, the Order concerning Plympton and Plymstock, the Minister has overruled, and a body which the Minister holds in such esteem he proposes to terminate it, and indeed to alter some of its recommendations. The House would do well completely to ignore any synthetic value which the Minister attributes to the recommendations of a body which evidently he holds to be time-expired, if not entirely useless.
What are the effects of the Order? They are to set up a new county borough which, if the rate of population increase is maintained, will just slip at a high tide over the breakwater of 100,000 laid down

as the absolute minimum for any new county borough. I doubt if any one in this House believes other than that when the Royal Commission which the Minister has set up reports, it will recommend that the minimum size for any new county borough should be well in excess of 100,000; so that this proposal goes contrary not only to the existing trend of municipal orders but contrary to the anticipated result of any reasonable inquiry into local government structure. If we accept this Order, we are setting up a new entity doomed to all the disadvantages of inadequate size before it is even born.
If the Royal Commission on Local Government is expeditious in its work, it is quite possible that its report condemning this sort of thing will come out and be offered to the House before the Order comes into effect. It is very possible that the Minister will ensure that that does not happen to avoid the obvious embarrassment.
The effects of the Order are to set up a new entity so small that it recognises its own incompetence to perform any local government functions such as fire, police and ambulance services. Those will be run in conjunction with Devon County Council. Within its frontiers, it will have many acts of social administration set up by Devon County Council for the benefit of the county as a whole, such as the College of Advanced Technology and a training establishment for handicapped persons. Those will continue to be used by the county, but with a tremendous amount of cross-over paper work as people are accounted for and charged on some hypothetical basis and with transfer payments being made from the county authority to the new authority.
Not very long ago, Devon, including the ratepayers of Torbay, put up a county hall. The eventual cost of it was no less than £1·6 million, and from it was to be administered the then County of Devon. It is now proposed to set up this new minute organism of local government. Already there has been the most acrimonious disputation between the tiny component bodies of the projected county borough as to where their new county borough hall should be, with one of the three units threatening to withdraw its support for going into the new county borough unless the new huge block of offices is built in its own little area.
Already £1·6 million has been spent on Devon County Hall, a significant proportion of which was paid for by the ratepayers of Torquay. That is now to be duplicated at immense cost—these things always come out at an immense cost—to the same ratepayers who have already paid for the existing new county hall. Possibly the Minister will notice that in his inspector's estimate of £84,000 for increased administration costs of the new county borough, there is no element for the new administrative offices. This might come out at £600,000, and it would surprise roe if it came out at very much less, although we are used to being surprised. One can then add, I would guess, about £78,000 to that £84,000, interest at about 8 per cent., plus amortisation of the capital sum. The inspector did not think of this. He did not think that they would want new offices and have a tremendous squabble about where they went, and the squabble was only settled by agreement to build glamorous new offices, to be paid for, of course, by the ratepayers.
The jobs in local government which are being done adequately by the existing county administration—and the inspector never said that they were not being done adequately—will be done by people promoted in grade and paid more money—by the ratepayers, of course—for doing the same work. If, after the Royal Commission has reported, this absurdly small new organism does not opt out and re-amalgamate with Devon, the ratepayers will have left round their necks many people taken on to the permanent staff of the local authority at increased rates of pay, with guaranteed pension structures; people who, as we know, cannot be got rid of by the wink of an eye. They will be taken on with an entitlement which will persist when this act of folly which the Minister is recommending is overturned, as overturned it most probably will be.
Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary prepared to tell the House that the present system of rate deficiency grant will continue, at any rate for the next 15 years? The hon. Gentleman's speeches leave us to expect that the answer is in the negative. If the present system of rate deficiency grant continues, we can expect the national Exchequer to have to pay out about £500,000 more a year than it

is paying at the moment in rate deficiency grant to Devon, for what measurable benefit? The answer is for no measurable benefit, and this at a time when our unclassified road programme and many other capital works are being cut right back because the Government are pleading the necessity for a freeze of expenditure; indeed, a contraction of expenditure.
We are now invited to throw open the end of the cornucopia and pour nearly £500,000 a year into unnecessary administrative costs, and this, presumably, is recommended as being in line with the Government's economic policy, in line with the wage freeze, and in line with all the other aspects of the cohesive, dynamic, arresting policy followed by the present Administration as a cure for our economic and social evils. The Minister has not come down to the House to recommend this Order to us. He has left it to his Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who has my deepest sympathy.
What are we to expect? The hon. Gentleman pleaded with the House that because April Fool's Day had been transferred from 1967 to 1968 the House should expedite the passage of this Order. Delighted as I am that the date has been postponed for a year, it logically follows that the inconvenience caused by failing to pass this Order is less than would otherwise have been the case, rather than greater. Does the hon. Gentleman realise—because he has not mentioned it to the House in introducing this Order—that the population density of the existing County of Devon is already pitiably low? It is one-third of a person per acre, and if this Order goes through it will become one-quarter of a person per acre—0·25 people per acre—and this we are offered in an Order presumably in fulfilment of what the Government believe to be a policy of encouraging sound local administration.
How pathetic can a proposal be? I do not believe that the Minister—let alone the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—has considered the consequence of this. If they get rid of the rate equalisation grant, the consequence of leaving the county ratepayer in an impoverished county where there are a number of areas which are recognised as particularly impoverished is that this area will have to bear an additional l0d. in the £ in


rates. That is not the way to encourage fresh industry to come into it.
If we look at Torbay, which is just squeezing over the breakwater of 100,000 what do we see? We see a gross disparity in age groups in the population. It is a place to which people go to retire. It has far less than its normal quota of young people. It has very little perennial industry. Its industry is largely seasonal, holiday industry, even though, compared with some areas, it attracts a measure of winter trade. This should make the Minister think carefully, even if the population were 175,000, but it is all the less reason for helping it over the breakwater and thereby creating a new balkanisation of Devon.
I hope that the Minister will not feel that his personal political pride is involved in getting this Order through the House. It was started on its way—from the point of view of inquiries—before the Government took office; therefore he need not feel any mortal loss of prestige or face if he decides to be sensible tonight instead of advocating folly to the House. I hope that the Minister will agree tonight on three things—first, that carrying out this Order will result in a significant increase in public expenditure; secondly, that that is totally foreign to the Government's present policy and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future and, thirdly, that in setting up this absurd unit he is going against the trend which his own Department advocates and is weakening an administrative county that already has placed upon its shoulders many and onerous problems, the discharge of which is the responsibility laid upon it by Parliament.
Devon County has a right to look to the Minister and ask him not to increase its burden, because it knows that if it comes to him for help in discharging the burden it will meet a head that shakes in the negative.

10.37 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: First, I thank my hon. Friend for taking such a keen and almost passionate interest in the affairs of my constituency, which forms the boundary almost exactly of the new proposed county borough. I do not want to hold up the proceedings of the

House by dealing with every point of special pleading in which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell Hyslop) indulged this evening. There is only one in respect of which he went a little too far for him to expect his remarks to pass unnoticed. He sought to refer to the excessive cost of having a county hall in Exeter as being something which should argue against Torbay's wish to run its own affairs. If we look back we shall probably find that it was precisely that argument, and others like it, that drove Torbay to decide that it would run its own affairs rather better. To have complained about the decision to build this marble palace in Exeter and then to seek to argue that, because the luckless electors of Torbay had to pay the money out of their rates, they do not deserve to run their own affairs, is going too far.
I have been trying to find out the real reason for opposing the Minister tonight In the first half of my hon. Friend's speech he pointed to the fact that this was an insignificant unit, just touching the 102,000 mark—small, minimal, unimportant. Anyone would think that his objection was that Torbay was too small and unimportant to matter at all; that it was incompetent to run its own affairs; that it could not provide the necessary expertise; so that this small, minimal unit did not deserve to be allowed to come into existence.
The second half of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton was an articulate argument to the effect that this small and insignificant unit, if separated, would bring the county to ruin. My hon. Friend must make up his mind on which leg of his argument he depends although, of course, since neither of them are correct, he cannot rely on either.
As the Minister said—and, since it is a vitally important point, it is surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton did not mention it—we are considering a "voluntary association". Those were the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's words. Throughout my hon. Friend's remarks not a word was said about the wishes of the people concerned. At the beginning of this controversy—remembering that it has gone on for seven years—I felt that it was my duty to remain neutral in the sense that I wanted to discover the wishes of the


great majority of my constituents. J wanted to make certain of their wishes before I gave my support one way or the other in putting forward the point of view of the people concerned.
It has not been shown tonight—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton would not attempt to prove it; he could not—that the people of Torbay do not want the proposal to go through. We therefore come to the point mentioned by the Minister, that of voluntary association. Over the years, for one reason or another, the people of Torbay have increasingly come to the conclusion that this is the right step to take. So much so that my hon. Friend was not able to point to one substantial section of the community in Torbay which does not want this. The only argument which my hon. Friend could deploy was about where the new offices should be situated. That is the sum total of the difficulty. There is no need for us to consider hypothetical cases that might arise in the future and so my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton was also unable to show that the people of Torbay do not want this result to take place.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said, when giving his historical review, that this discussion and debate about the future of this great tourist area—which is now generally acknowledged here and abroad to be one of the most prominent in the United Kingdom—had gone on for about seven years. Certainly today the phrase "voluntary association" can be used to describe what is wanted by the people of this area. The three councils voted in favour of the county borough by substantial majorities.
I was at the meeting to which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred. On that occasion my colleagues representing Torquay, Paignton and Brixham came to see the Minister. We had a long argument and pointed out that the matter should not be delayed from 1967 till 1968. The hon. Gentleman will agree that I am being entirely fair in saying that the representatives said that they were willing to go along with the Minister's wishes and accept his view without further argument, on the basis that that would not be used as an excuse for the Order not finally being brought into effect. The representatives were given the assurance

which the Minister gave tonight; that it was all a question of administrative convenience but that that would not be a reason or provide an opportunity for the Government or Parliament to throw out the Order.
To recapitulate the history of this matter. At the time when Torbay made known its wish to form a county borough 100,000 people was the figure mentioned. It is no good today talking in terms of 102,000 or 103,000. The fact remains that the figure is now accepted as being 100,000. Thus, from the point of view of the statutory figure at which a county borough may be formed, 100,000 is the accepted one.
We then had the inspector's report, with which I will not weary the House. Suffice to say that generally it was in favour of the creation of a county borough. We then had the Commission's Report, which was also in favour of the proposal. Consideration of the matter was given by the Minister, and it so happened that an election took place and the Minister who ultimately gave this decision was a Labour Minister. When he made his decision—I regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not here tonight; he is the present Leader of the House—he knew perfectly well that everybody in Torbay was prepared at that time to accept his decision, one way or the other. There would be no argument, no attempt to dispute the Minister's decision, or to fight him.
After the Minister's decision, and until very recently, there was no objection from the county at all. The late Alderman Day, chairman of the county council, who died tragically all too recently, said on television that although he himself had opposed the creation of this county borough, now that the Minister had given a decision it was up to the county to cooperate, and to see that the machinery necessary for the implementation of that decision was brought into being speedily and amiably.
Suddenly, at very short notice, we find worked up this opposition to the Order. It is noticeable that except for a word, at my instigation, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, I was given no intimation from any source that an Order affecting my own constituency would be contested here this evening——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my hon. Friend aware that we had no intimation until Thursday that the Order was to be dealt with this evening?

Sir F. Bennett: There has still been the lapse of time between Thursday and Monday, during which time I have received no direct intimation, other than by my own specific inquiry, that my hon. Friend intended to oppose this Order this evening. I should have thought that it would have been a matter of mere courtesy to have given me some intimation of his intention. I do not make much of this, but it is surprising, when it has been known for a long time that this Order would come before the House tonight—it has been tabled for a long time—that we had no intimation until the last minute——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: With respect, that is quite untrue. Devon County Council has had a number of meetings dating as far back as December, 1965, over this Order. The county council's opposition has been persistent and prolonged. What my hon. Friend has just said is inaccurate.

Sir F. Bennett: That was not the statement I had just made—it was about two statements back. I am sure my hon. Friend will not contradict the fact that Alderman Day said that, although he disagreed with the decision, now it had been made it was up to the county loyally to implement the report——

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Yes—if passed by the House.

Sir F. Bennett: Obviously, if the Order is not passed by the House the situation would not arise. My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that at this stage we would be facing the major unscrambling of an egg, which would be impracticable and virtually impossible. It has been assumed ever since the Minister gave his decision that nothing adverse would happen. The county indicated that it would not oppose, and that nothing would happen. Even in another place, it was not until 24 hours before the time limit—and I am not even sure that it was legally in time—that a petition was lodged against the Order. I therefore repeat that all the evidence is that this was a very last minute attempt by certain elements in the county to block this Order tonight.
If there is any validity in the argument against the creation of this county

borough that it damages the county, that argument would apply to every county borough. I am quite prepared to accept that in due course of time this Government, or some other Government, may decide that the division between counties and county boroughs is wrong, and that we should have another system. I am not prepared to argue that. All I say is that according to the criteria in existence when the necessary inquiries were made, and the report was made, and the Minister's decision was given, Torbay qualified for its creation as a county borough.
It may well be that there will be changes later, but if tonight we are to say that because the trend is against county boroughs we should break the criteria retrospectively, this comes oddly from my hon. Friends who, on every other occasion on retrospection, are only too keen to attack the party opposite. Any argument against the creation of the Torbay County Borough applies to every other county borough at the present time. If Torbay satisfies the criteria laid down by the previous Government and endorsed by this one, it has every right to take advantage of these criteria and to come into being. I do not usually find myself in the company of hon. Members opposite, but I think that they have behaved with good faith in this matter and I, whatever the result of the argument, will have no hesitation in supporting the Minister.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: We are discussing one of the most important and difficult problems that Devon has had for a long time, that is the fragmentation of the county. This is what the Order is all about. Fragmentation means pieces broken off the whole. This is dangerous for the body, it is dangerous for Devon county and it is dangerous for the pieces broken off.
The situation has been well set out in the memorandum drawn up by the Devon County Council. I should be ruled out of order if I went too far into their proposals, but one is the transferring of the built-up portions of the parishes of Plympton and Plymstock and the other parishes of Alphington, Pinhoe and Topsham. I look on these things as a whole and disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) that we are concerned only with


Torbay. I am concerned with the fragmentation of Devon; this is what this Order is about. There have been other Orders and admittedly we have failed in the past and we may fail again, but I will not alter my point of view that this is fragmentation of the county. I am against these decisions. They will have a harmful effect on the county and not only on this humble Member. The County Councils Association is quite concerned and worried about it.
Devon is not a wealthy county with great deposits of minerals or basic raw materials which would bring us great industrial development and wealth. We are a large and scattered county with difficult communications and special problems. These difficulties mean that it is important to have a strong and efficient administration for the whole county.
My main contention and argument and my answer to the hon. Member for Torquay is that we stand or fall as a county as a whole. We prosper together as a whole or we fail together as a whole, and to me it is as simple as that. Hiving off the more prosperous areas is bound to affect what is left.
I am proud to be a Devon man and I want Devon to prosper as a whole and this will occur only if we work together as a unit and as a team. This is true of the nation. No one thinks that it or an area of it can exist by itself. We depend upon each other. It is true that Torbay is a prosperous area which helps the less prosperous areas, but the rest of the county has much to give back in return.
The Minister says that Torbay is an exceptional case, but it is difficult to understand what he means by this. It is true that many holiday makers go to Torbay but as Devon County Council says in its memorandum:
certainly visitors today do not remain in one place. They tour from one resort to another and into the rural areas which lie behind the coast, and it seems certainly wrong to put Torbay in a special category with financial advantages over their neighbours merely because Torquay, Paignton and Brixham happen to lie on the same large bay.
How true this is. We find that in the rest of the county visitors are streaming from Torbay to the other parts. We provide many of the facilities which bring people to Torbay. Torbay needs the rest

of the county just as we need Torbay. To think otherwise is very selfish.
I can understand the position of Torbay residents, but I wish that they would think of the county as a whole and of the needs of the county. Torbay makes a greatly reduced contribution towards rates for rural water schemes and sewerage. Is this fair? There is the problem of administration. The effect of these suggestions would be to unbalance the always desirable balance in local government between the urban and rural points of view. To destroy this is not desirable.
Then there is the problem of finance. Local government finance is never easy and today it is probably more difficult than at any other time. It is no good people saying that all will be well and that it will be covered by rate deficiency grants. Who knows how long that will continue? Without being rude to the Minister, I would say that I do not think any assurances from him are worth having on this point. Times change and circumstances change. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ministers change."] Indeed they do. The rest of the county could be left high and dry if the Minister at some future date decided to scrap the rate deficiency grant.
These measures will throw the local authority more and more into dependence on central Government. I am sure that is a bad thing. Is it wise at a time like this—admittedly a very difficult time, as we all agree—to have this greatly increased capital expenditure, which Torbay would have to make to provide the new facilities? There seems no point in doing this when already the county has such facilities and is operating them very well indeed. I believe that this is nonsense. I am not only concerned with Torbay but with all other fragmentations which have taken place and will take place.
Even though some of the honourable people in our county seem to think that we are making much out of a very small point, I believe this proposal to be a mistake and I hope that the House will vote against it.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Robert Mathew: There is only one question here—whether the proposals put forward in this Order are


in the interests of the improvement of the administration of the area as a whole. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) that consistently for a long time the county council has opposed proposals for the very good reason that they are not in the interests of the area as a whole.

Sir F. Bennett: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. Friend, but perhaps I should do so to avoid argument later. My hon. Friend has said that this has been opposed for a long time, but he should remember that in April this year the county council by an amendment decided not to continue to oppose the decision, so from April until tonight the opposition has been withdrawn.

Mr. Mathew: The impression that my hon. Friend gave in his speech was not that there had been a long history of opposition but that opposition had suddenly arisen at the last moment. The one criterion left is whether the administration of the area as a whole—what is now the county council area—will be improved. The amputation of a major limb—yet another limb—must be a serious matter to the county. It involves 25 per cent. of the rateable value.
I do not intend to stress any of the points that have already been so ably made by my hon. Friends in opposing this Order, but I should like to put three points on the matter of timing. There has been a certain amount of talk by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay about putting an end to the unnecessary length of delay, hesitations, indecisions and so forth. Indeed, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary himself mentioned this. But there are three matters which have changed since the decision was originally taken by the former Minister of Housing and Local Government who is now Leader of the House. First of all, we have had the appointment of the Royal Commission. This was mentioned by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I would remind him of the words of the Prime Minister about the Royal Commission. He said that the Minister of Housing and Local Government
will be free to go on with any appropriate cases, but when it comes to broader issues and those which involve matters of deep principle, on which the Boundary Commissions have sometimes reached conflicting views, we would

do well to await the reports of the Royal Commissions.
Later he said:
… on the big issues of principle it would be better to await the reports of the Commissions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 294.]
Surely the creation of a new county borough, the milking of an administrative county, of 25 per cent. of its rateable value must be a big issue of principle. Would not ordinary common sense dictate that it would be much wiser to await the outcome of the Royal Commission's Report?
The second point is the alteration in the grant structure for local government. This is a matter of great alarm for all ratepayers living within the County of Devon. Will the Minister give us some assurance about the future of the rate grant as it affects the administrative County of Devon as it will be if the Order is passed?
I would remind the House of remarks that the former Minister made on this very matter. As we know, it will be possible for the Government, as a result of provisions in the Local Government Bill, to do away with the rate deficiency grant. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman said that the rate deficiency grant
is another of the things which will go, because it is no good. It has the grave disadvantage of basing the deficiency on rateable values and, in different parts of the country, they represent a strange way of defining need. …I think that it is probable that rate deficiency grant … will go."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1965; Vol. 711, c. 1496.]
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said on 14th June, when talking on the Local Government Bill:
There are two main reasons why, as far as one can see, some counties could probably lose. …The other is that some counties have benefited for quite a time from the weighting of the low density formula. Under the new system they will cease to get that benefit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 1378–9.]
This Order means that 25 per cent. of the rateable value of Devon will go. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say that if the rate deficiency system also goes something will replace it to make the remaining County of Devon a viable entity and an economic administrative unit?
The last point which leads me to the conclusion that the timing is very bad, and most unacceptable in a time of


economic crisis, for the Government to propose to establish a new county borough, is the expense not only in absolute terms in the cost of local government administration but in the probability that county boroughs with a population of 100,000 will not continue as all-purpose authorities when the Royal Commission's recommendations have been given effect. Surely the wise thing would have been to await the outcome of the Royal Commission's Report, before going ahead with this on the excuse which was given by the Minister in introducing the Order that the matter has gone on for long enough and that there have been delays and hesitations.
If the expense that is now being incurred by the ratepayers, and indeed by the taxpayers, will be abortive, tonight's debate and the Order will have been so much wasted breath. It would be wise for the Minister, even at this late stage, to withdraw the Order and await developments, await the Royal Commission's Report, await the decisions that are made about the deficiency grant system or about what is to replace it, so that we can see clearly ahead both in the county and in the councils of Torbay.
For those reasons I ask that the House reject the Order.

11.08 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I, too, oppose the Order. I am not certain whether I should have told the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) of my intentions, but I have not, and I hope that he can withstand the shock.

Sir F. Bennett: I am absolutely amazed. The hon. Gentleman never has any need to inform me. I should be extremely surprised if he ever supported me in anything.

Mr. Thorpe: I find the hon. Gentleman extremely civilised on so many things, like Gibraltar, where he has had the great distinction of quelling a riot in his own right, and I have always respected him for that.
The Minister said that the Order must go through because we could not unscramble the egg. There has been no egg scrambled. At the moment, the

Devon hen is sitting on the whole county with Exeter and Plymouth clucking on their own. When he says that there has been objection from the people of Torquay, that may well be so, but the Minister must look at the wider considerations within the whole context of Devon.
I do not want to be ungenerous, but I think that some of the enthusiasm—by no means all—was induced, and certainly it would have given me cause for enthusiasm, when the initial indication was that 1s. in the £ would come off the rates. I gather that now the chairman of the co-ordinating committee has amended that to say that he does not think that the rates will be increased.
I am delighted to see that the Leader of the House is present, whether he is here in that capacity or is looking on one of those strange children he tried to bring into the world, which had a long period of gestation and may or may not be given birth to tonight.
The first thing I want to clear up is the suggestion that Devon County Council, referred to in the person of the late Alderman John Day, said in a television interview that it would give every assistance in bringing forward this scheme. That did not mean that it was in favour of it. What the county council said, quite plainly, was that, if the Order went through, and if it were the wish of the House, it would, naturally, do everything in its power to co-operate.
I understand that at this moment—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—there is a Petition against this Order before the other House. I have no particularly great love for the other House. We may want to abolish either the House itself or the power of Petition, but so long as it exists and the power of Petition exists, I should have thought that normal relations between the two Houses would at least have permitted that Petition to be heard first before the Order was rushed through. I should certainly have expected the party opposite to have due respect for the other House, because I believe that the list of Labour people applying for life peerages is almost as long as in the 1909 dispute when they were going to have to be created. It seems a very odd time for the Government to introduce this Order.
Next, it is contrary to the Government's own declared policy. We remember the introduction of the Greater London Council. We were continually told that we must have larger administrative units. The Home Secretary is to make an Order in regard to the police because we have to have larger administrative units, and the same was the view of his predecessor, Lord Stow Hill, in regard to the fire services. But here in this case we have fragmentation.
I think that, when the right hon. Gentleman was entertained in the Tory last stronghold of Torquay as, perhaps, no Labour Minister has ever been entertained before, it went to his head. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It was the Devonshire cream."] Perhaps the expectation of this cream to come affected his judgment.
At a time when the Government are moving, albeit haltingly, towards a system of regional government, which means that we are thinking regionally in terms of larger units, and when, again, in local government services such as the fire and police services we are thinking in terms of larger units, it is extraordinary that the Minister should seek to carve out a piece of the county of Devon and create a new county borough.
I am particularly interested from the standpoint of the North Devon area, because this is a very unbalanced county in terms of wealth. There is the very prosperous South Devon, perhaps over-populated by the English at the expense of the Devonians, and there is the underpopulated, very low-paid northern area where there is depopulation. One rural district I know has lost 10 per cent. of its population over the last 10 years. There is high unemployment. In my constituency, I have 10·2 per cent. unemployment in one part of the county.
We are, therefore, very frightened of the more prosperous sections being broken off, not merely because it is against the interest of the poorer sections of the community—it seems a typically Tory idea, "to him that hath shall be given "—but also because it will make life very difficult for the county as a whole.
As the Minister has made the observations about the rate deficiency grant quoted by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew), we are entitled to ask

what the Government's policy is to be. As the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, are we to have a guarantee that this will go on for 10 or 15 years, or are we to see heavier burdens still on the less prosperous areas of the county? The Chairman of the Devon County Council, Mr. Gerald Whitmarsh, in his letter to the right hon. Gentleman of 25th July, said that the extra cost falling on the taxpayer would be about £250,000 a year. It seems to me that this is somewhat out of keeping with current Government economic policy. Is he right in saying that the running costs will be about £100,000 a year? If he is, this, again, seems an unnecessary increase in expenditure.
What is the point, as the hon. Members for Honiton and Tiverton said, of bringing in this Order now when the whole pattern of local government is under review at this moment by the Royal Commission?
I hope that as a result of that Royal Commission—I must be careful not to go outside the bounds of order—we shall see dramatic changes made in the whole structure of local government and that, for example, regional government will be given tremendous power. Whatever decisions are taken by the Royal Commission, they are bound to affect the structure——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is now getting out of order. That question is not part of the Order.

Mr. Thorpe: I respectfully agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I bring myself back into order by saying that at the very moment when the Government have asked a Royal Commission to examine the whole structure of local government, it seems lunacy to take a decision which will be extremely costly economically, which will be taken before we have any idea of the future rate deficiency position and the whole finance of local government and which is contrary to the established policy of the Government in their local government rearrangements.
The Government are against fragmentation and have said so constantly. Why they should make this exception in this case, I know not. Having listened to the Parliamentary Secretary, I certainly


do not know the reason for it. This is a mad scheme which, I prophesy, even if it goes through, we will see reversed in the next 15 years.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: As someone who is passionately devoted to the interests of the West Country, but speaking from a city and county which got its charter in the reign of Edward III and which is, therefore, immune from such blights and blandishments as we have had tonight, perhaps I might be permitted to ask the Minister a few questions, since it is the Government who have come here tonight to make a case for the Order.
If we could be convinced of the viability of the new County Borough of Torbay, we would wish it well. We have heard of the great importance of tourism to Torbay. We have also heard something of the communications problem. I hope that before this debate is concluded, the Minister, in making his case for Torbay, can say something about the improvements which the Government propose in communications by rail, and particularly by road.
I must not stray too far in that direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, that subject has been introduced into the debate. If the new borough is to be viable and tourism is its main industry—and, presumably, the tourists will not all come by sea—communications are vitally important and the Government must have proposals for dealing with that problem. All that they have done so far is to cut back what we did during our term of office. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) wish to intervene?

Mr. Thorpe: Not a bit.

Mr. Cooke: I take it that the hon. Member was nodding assent to what I said.

Mr. Thorpe: To quote the Duke of Wellington, if the hon. Member believes that, he can believe anything.

Mr. Cooke: It is difficult to know what the hon. Member for Devon, North, is saying from a seated position behind me. I will endeavour briefly to conclude my remarks.
As a West Countryman, I want to see the counties remain viable. I come from the City of Bristol as a Member of Parliament, but I live in the County of Dorset and I have a wide knowledge of the counties which have been discussed tonight. We want to see the Devon County remain as a viable unit, even if they have built a glass and marble palace costing £1·6 million. May God forgive them. We want far more assurance from the Government that the new borough will be viable and that the county will not be left in an impossible financial position.
I cannot but have been impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew) said about the rate deficiency grant position. I hope that the Government, in their reply, will deal with the very telling questions asked by my hon. Friend, because he cast considerable doubt on the financial future of those areas which depend upon the rate deficiency grant.
We would give our support, I am sure, to reforms in local government if they were going to make for greater efficiency, but here we have had it said—and accepted by the Government, as I take it—that very considerable additional administrative expense is to be involved Well, that can be justified if we are to see an increase in efficiency, but so far I find myself in considerable doubt
I admire the passionate way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir B. Bennett) put his case. It is perfectly obvious that many of his constituents are very happy with what is being proposed, but doubts have been cast on the foundations of their happiness, and perhaps they may find themselves not as well off as they had hoped.
I came to this debate this evening not having read the statements of the various lobbyists on the one side and the other. I knew that my hon. Friends had varying views on this subject and that it was to be discussed here tonight. As someone who cares about the West Country and can look at the matter objectively, I came here to make up my mind on the merits of the speeches, which I have now heard.
This causes considerable amusement to the Lord President of the Council, who used to be the Minister of Housing and Local Government and is responsible for this Order.—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon.


Member came only halfway through the debate."] He came only halfway through the debate?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. You did."] This is, of course, typical of the Members on the Government side. I cannot imagine the serried ranks of hon. Members here this evening are just waiting for the Adjournment debate: they are waiting to go home. All they can say is that I came in halfway through the debate.
I have heard every single word of this debate from both sides of the House, and I have watched the Minister carefully annotating that prepared speech of preconceived ideas which he is to use at the end of the debate. I can only hope that the Minister will look at the merits of this case. In my view, a case has not been made finally either way. The Minister should give further consideration to it—take it away and think again.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I shall not detain the House more than a few moments. This has been an interesting debate, with different views put forward for both sides, for the county borough and the county, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has a fairly substantial case to meet if he wishes to get an affirmative resolution for the Order tonight. He has a substantial case to meet for five or six different reasons.
First, I think that he ought to dispose of the fact that he brings this Order before this House when there is a Petition in the other place. I personally think it most unfortunate that the Government seek—this is not the first time they have done it—from this House an affirmative Resolution which may, in fact, be quite purposeless. An Order of this sort requires a Resolution of both Houses. It may well be that the Petition will be upheld in the other place, and it would, perhaps, have been better to have waited till we knew the result of the Petition, before debating the Order here.
Secondly, the Minister brings this Order before this House in anticipation of the Royal Commission which, we hope, will report at not too late a date and which may have a different view altogether. I can appreciate the doubts which he explained to the House, that the decision in this case was in June,

1965, before the announcement of the Royal Commission, but it does raise doubts in one's mind whether we are making here a decision which may well not be in line with the advice and recommendations of the Royal Commission.
The population figure of 100,000 for the county borough is not a figure which we have been given to understand lately should be the right figure for a new county borough. It is undoubtedly a low figure. There are the services which this county borough will be unable to undertake, the fire service and the policy service. On the county side, those hon. Members who have spoken on behalf of the county have shown that there will be disadvantages of rateable value, and so on.
This Order has taken a long time to get to the House; I understand, seven years. It has gone through a number of inquiries in that time and, when it started on its way with the recommendations of the Commission, the Commission itself was not quite certain what course to take. It recommended at first that it should not be a county borough, but should have district status and a sort of amalgamation of district services. Then it changed its mind and recommended a county borough. As a result, there was the inquiry before the Minister's inspector. That was a very thorough inquiry in which a great deal of evidence was recorded by the inspector, and I imagine that the case on either side was fully deployed at that time.
I am coming round now to assist the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. In the face of all the evidence, which is fully and carefully set out by the inspector, the Minister came to the conclusion that the Commission's decision for a county borough was correct. If I may quote from the Minister's letter:
Looked at from the point of view of Torquay, Paignton and Brixham, therefore, the Minister has reached the conclusion that it would be right to join them in a county borough. But he has had also to consider the effect on the county. To them, obviously, the loss would be serious. He has, however, concluded that the Commission were right in holding that the disadvantage to the county would not be so great as to outweigh the benefit to the future of Torbay, and that despite the loss of population and rateable resources the county would still be a strong and effective instrument of local government. The Minister therefore accepts the Commission's proposal for the establishment of a county borough at Torbay.


That is the Minister's decision. In opening the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary did not go very much further than stating that that was the decision. He has been asked many questions during the course of the debate. I think that it needs further reasoning from him to satisfy my hon. Friends that there should be approval of the Order. I do not think that he has by any means satisfied the House at present, and I hope that he will be able to give further information and answers to the questions which have been asked.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: A number of criticisms of varying weight have been made. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) objected to the proposal because it was to begin on 1st April. That is one of the less impressive objections, because the point is that the financial year begins on 1st April. It is a sensible administrative arrangement that, if a unit of local government is starting its life, it should start at the beginning of the financial year. The hon. Gentleman should not be contemptuous of Torbay for starting life on 1st April. It is what is done by most of the new authorities that are appointed.
The objection produced by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) surprised me. I was surprised to find the hon. Gentleman being agreed with by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I expected the hon. Member for Crosby to take a point like this, but to say that we in this House were not to take a decision on an affirmative Order which has to be passed by both Houses because the other place has its own procedure for dealing with these matters which is different from ours seems to me to be a constitutional doctrine from which even the Duke of Wellington, whom the hon. Gentleman quoted with such enthusiasm, would shy.

Mr. Thorpe: Surely it is within the hon. Gentleman's knowledge—if not, perhaps he would like to know—that there is no procedure for petitioning this House in this matter, and, therefore, the Devon County Council has resorted to the best means it can of expressing its protest.

Mr. MacColl: It is entitled to do that, but this House over the years has not in its wisdom had a procedure

for Petitions. It has decided that by the time this has been looked at by the Local Government Commission, by an impartial inspector, and by my right hon. Friend, a sensible body of mature people in this House can make up their own minds about it. If the other place takes a different view, that is its affair, and not ours. It is almost a breach of privilege to say that we are not entitled to take a decision on an Order before the House because the other place has its own procedure for dealing with it.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point. There are two procedures in the other place—one the Petition, and the other to debate the matter in the House. AH we are suggesting is that the first procedure which is adopted there might go through before we waste our time here in debating this Order.

Mr. MacColl: That is a doctrine which we might apply to many things. We might discuss not to have a Land Bill until it has been discussed in the other place. We have our own procedure, which we have adopted, and it would be wrong for me to make any comment on, or criticism of, what is done in another place. Our job is to deal with the Order which my right hon. Friend, in pursuance of the Local Government Act, has laid before the House. He has to do that, and the House should make a decision on it. I therefore ask the House not to be side-tracked by that point but to take a responsible decision on this matter.
The hon. Member for Devon, North said that future tendencies were towards larger authorities and towards regionalism. If that be the case—and I am not anticipating what the Royal Commission may decide—it is as likely fundamentally to affect county council government as it is county borough government, and it is not an argument Tor saying that we will not give Torbay what it wants because after the Commission has reported we may have such a reorganisation that it will be neither one nor the other.
This is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton. He said, in a rather contemptuous way, that these wretched people were not even fit to run the fire and police services.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I did not say that they were not fit to run them. I said that they did not want to. They do not want to, they have agreed not to.

Mr. MacColl: The position is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is discussing the question of the organisation of the police in this part of the country. He is proposing an amalgamation of Cornwall, Devon, and Plymouth forces in a new police authority, in accordance with his general policy. If the new Torbay county borough takes the view that it should join that big authority, it shows that it is being pretty sensible about the whole business, because it illustrates the point that in the light of the new post-Royal Commission world county council government as we know it is as likely to be obsolete as county borough government, and, therefore, it is irrelevant to this question. The county borough council is the fire authority, and it is up to it to decide whether it joins Devon County. It will decide that when it is constituted and is able to do it.
The hon. Member for Tiverton also attacked the inspector's assessment of the costs. He said that the inspector had not taken into account the estimates for the provision of a town hall. The inspector did not invent these figures. There was a long and exhaustive argument and discussion before him on both sides about the estimates of cost, and he formed his opinion judicially, having heard both sides of the case. If what the hon. Member said were true it would only be a reflection upon the way in which the case was presented by the county council, and in no sense a reflection upon the decision of the inspector.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision had not then been taken to build a completely new administrative centre rather than use the existing one?

Mr. MacColl: The forensic and dialectical resources of Devon County Council and its advisers would have got the point that if a new county borough is being created it is likely that there will be a new town hall, and, therefore, it is likely that the county council would have explored every opportunity and every facet of this question of cost.
I want to say something about the grant situation, because this has been an understandable worry on the part of people objecting to the Order. As far as I can say, and as far as my right hon. Friend knows, the rate support grant in its new form will go on at least until there is a fundamental reorganisation of local government and its finances. The Bill which has just passed through the House is intended to remain in existence until that time. That includes a resources element, which provides the same kind of assistance as that which is given by the rate deficiency grant.
It is quite true that I cannot say categorically what would be the effect of the new grant on Devon in its new form, because whenever a new grant order is being negotiated it is not possible to tell, until after the negotiations are over, what is going to turn up. Therefore, all I say is subject to the proviso that as far as I know, and according to my advice, Devon will be no worse off under the new grant than it has been under the existing one.
Two matters are likely to affect that situation in this respect. The first is the new low density supplement. That is being discussed with the associations, but my right hon. Friend's idea is that it will produce much the same results in this context as the old one did. The other matter is the sparsity weighting in the resources element. The position there is that counties in whose area there are fewer than 70 people per mile of road have their population increased by two-fifths of the shortfall in the calculation of the rate deficiency grant. We were discussing this only last week when it came up on Report, and we moved an Amendment to increase the weighing of this resources element, which would help. For those two reasons, Devon will not find itself worse off financially.
The argument that has been put forward from the point of view of general financial criticism is that this is inconsistent with a proper economic policy. We are arguing about the distribution of the cost between local and central government. The total cost is not affected, except in a maginal way. Therefore there is no doubt that as far as Torbay is concerned it is viable. That has not been challenged. I quoted the figures of


what the rateable value per head would be.
The population is practically the same as that of Solihull, which has only just become a county borough. Therefore, Torbay is quite viable. Devon, in its new form, is viable, and as far as one can tell will not be serioulsy affected, financially, when we see the new grant at work.
My advice to the House is to accept the Order, bearing in mind what I have said about the long-term reform of local government and the fact that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has made a statement about

accepting matters where decisions were issued before the appointment of the Royal Commission. The Order should be accepted because, as I pointed out, the decision in this matter was arrived at before the appointment of the Royal Commission. There would, therefore, have to be something very wrong indeed with the Order to justify throwing it out. Nothing said tonight, and none of the figures produced, gives us reason to disagree with either the Local Government Commission or my right hon. Friend.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 10.

Division No. 192.]
AYES
[11.40 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Forrester, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Allritt, Walter
Fowler, Gerry
Murray, Albert


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Neal, Harold


Archer, Peter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Newens, Stan


Armstrong, Ernest
Gardner, Tony
Oakes, Gordon


Ashley, Jack
Gourlay, Harry
Ogden, Eric


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gregory, Arnold
Orbach, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Hamling, William
Oswald, Thomas


Bence, Cyril
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth S'tn)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hart. Mrs. Judith
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Haseldine, Norman
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Heffer, Eric S.
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hiley, Joseph
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buns, John
Hilton, W. S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Bishop, E. S.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howie, W.
Roberts, Cwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Boardman, H.
Hoy, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Booth, Albert
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Braddock. Mr. E. M.
Hunter, Adam
Roebuck, Roy


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Rose, Paul


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ross Rt. Hn. William


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ryan, John


Cant, R. B.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Coe, Denis
Lawson, George
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Coleman, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Concannon, J. D.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Swingler, Stephen


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Loughlin, Charles
Tinn, James


Cullen. Mrs. Alice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tuck, Raphael


Dalyell, Tam
McBride, Neil
Varley, Eric G.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
McCann, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
MacColl, James
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacDermot, Niall
Wallace, George


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Macdonald, A. H.
Watkins, David (Consett)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
McGuire, Michael
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Delargy, Hugh
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)
Wellbeloved, James


Dewar, Donald
Mackie, John
Whitaker, Ben


Dickens, James
Mackintosh, John P.
Whitlock, William


Doig, Peter
Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Dunn, James A.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Dunnett, Jack
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Dunwoody. Mr. Gwyneth (Exeter)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Williams. Mr. Shirley (Hitchin)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Eadie, Alex
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ellis, John
Manuel, Archie
Winnick, David


Ennals, David
Marquand, David
Woodburn Rt. Hn. A.


Ensor, David
Mellish, Robert
Woof, Robert


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mendelson, J. J.
Yates, Victor


Faulds, Andrew
Millan, Bruce



Fernyhough, E.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mitchell, R. c. (S'th'pton, Test)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moonman, Eric
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Ford, Ben
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)





NOES


Cooke, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Corfield, F. V.
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. Maxwelt-Hyslop and


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Mr. Peter Mills.


Kitson, Timothy
Thorpe, Jeremy



Mathew, Robert
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Resolved,
That the Torbay Order 1966, dated 1st August 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th August, be approved.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT, BATHGATE

11.50 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The fact that this Adjournment debate has the interest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who, I hope, may catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps indicates that this is not just a parochial Bathgate problem. It is a central Scottish problem and indeed fairly typical of the present situation in some development areas, in Scotland, England and Wales.
Before saying anything else, may I express my appreciation for the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, the Minister of Technology and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, and other Ministers. This indicates, perhaps, the importance that I know that the Government attach to these difficult matters, and difficult they are. There are 9 per cent. unemployed and six advance factories with a total of 40,000 square feet for which no work has been found. There is local authority debt. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour gave further facts today which showed that at the moment there are 2,267 people registered as unemployed at the Bathgate Employment Exchange. The corresponding figures in October 1965, 1964, 1963 and 1962 were 596, 704, 982, and 1,031, respectively.
The only question worth asking in an adjournment Debate is: what constructively and usefully can we do about it? In asking for the setting up of a new

kind of machinery of Government, I do not just ask this for my own constituency but I would ask for the same for Llanelli, or Doncaster, or North Devon, the problems of which we heard about in the debate earlier.
It is reasonable to ask that there should be a small group of people who can give their full time and attention to the totality of an area's problem. Perhaps two politicians should be involved and a small task force of civil servants. It is quite legitimate to ask precisely what they would do. In the first place, they would make recommendations for emergency action and put them up to the many Government Departments involved, because this is a multi-dimensional problem. No one Ministry can solve the problems of Bathgate, or Llanelli. It would be the obligation of the Ministers to give reasoned replies saying what they could or could not carry out, although the Ministers must have a power of veto. I am not naive enough to believe that the power of veto should be taken away from Ministers.
The problem has been with us for a number of weeks and, in the case of Bathgate, some months, and there has been too much delay. This is the major issue which I take with my own Government. Perhaps, if things had been faced up to rather sooner the problem would have been a good deal less. A "task force", along the lines I suggested in the redeployment debate, would have powers of decision making which are not easily used by the Departments at the moment, which act far too separately. I have given notice to the Parliamentary Secretary that this kind of argument would arise. I hope that she will be able to persuade the House either that I am misguided or that something can be done in the future to overcome this problem.
Specifically, what would the task force do and what kind of problems would it look at in the context of Bathgate? We turn, first, to the question of retraining. A great deal of correspondence


has gone on between us on this issue. I ask two questions. What is the Ministry's attitude towards the proposals of the A.E.U. on this matter? Some fairly detailed proposals were put forward on behalf of the A.E.U. by Mr. John Boyd. In particular, can my hon. Friend say anything about the very important suggestions of the Minister of Labour as reported in column 686 of HANSARD on Monday last, because many of us in, the development areas regard this as an extremely important step. I have been informed today by the Minister, in a Written Answer, that he is
also examining with the industrial training boards ways in which they might help with the immediate adult training problem "and that he" will make an announcement as soon as possible.
We look forward to this announcement as a matter of extreme urgency, because it may include part of the answer to our considerable problems. I ask my hon. Friend one precise question. Can she say anything about the mechanism by which firms receiving incoming workers are to be approached? Who, in this situation, will act as the catalyst of action? If she could clear that up to night it would be extremely useful.
The second proposition which might be discussed by a task force concerns credit. Is it possible, as we have been putting forward, in some way to make regional use of different credit schemes? Are discussions taking place with the Bank of England? Has the Ministry, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had time to consider the various ideas put forward by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) on the possibilities of seasonal variations in hire purchase and Purchase Tax to attempt to level out demand for the motor vehicle industry?
The third question, and this again might be tackled by such a task force as I have outlined, is the possibility of using the Selective Employment Tax as an instrument of regional development. This seems to be realistic. I understood the Chancellor's difficulties when he first introduced this complicated measure. It seems that fairly soon variations in the Selective Employment Tax would help situations like that of Bathgate.
The fourth issue which might well be discussed is the question of small public

enterprises in areas of persistent underemployment. I realise that there are difficulties in starting from scratch. This is no immediate answer to the problem, but I find that there are variations, which is the policy of the Labour Party, and in particular combinations between private enterprise and public enterprise. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) knows of some firms in the Bathgate and Lanark area which would certainly co-operate in this kind of joint venture.
I ask about the possibilities of re-phasing public works, and not least developments in the new town of Livingston. What those in the situation in which we find ourselves want above everything is some kind of contingency planning. A very good opening for contingency planning is a new town. Ministers concerned about this—the Minister of State, Scottish Office especially, will bear this out—will know how very co operative the staff of Livingston Corporation and the chairman of the development board can be in this matter. They certainly will be because without doubt they are as keen as I am to see the kind of development we are asking for tonight.
Again, I must ask about the question of using the power of the public purse. Here, I should like to be specific. I refer to the Kenning Coachwork Company, which is opposite B.M.C., in Bath gate. That company states:
With regard to regional development, we suggest that we have full co-operation as far as the capital programme allows to fit in with regional policies. Therefore, in view of the present situation and the fact that B.R.S. operate their vehicles in Scotland, we feel that we are in a position to tender for their work. We shall therefore be pleased if you will raise the matter with the Ministry of Transport.
This is an example of the multi-dimensional approach to the problem that is necessary. There is no answer in terms of a single Ministry.
In particular, this is true of my last suggestion. This concerns the way in which aid to developing countries—I am not asking for more of it—could be tied up to under-utilised capacity in this country. This has been gone into at great length and the Government know all about my detailed views. There are various possibilities in this matter.
I should like to make one further point on linked aid from under-used capacity


If a scheme were worked out along these lines it would help this country's standing both with the International Monetary Fund and with the World Bank. This is not the moment to go into detail on the speeches of Pierre Paul Schweitzer and George Woods, though here the Treasury has had an opportunity to study this in detail. If we were to go for some plan linking under-used capacity in this country to such aid as we do give, it would have the sympathy of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and might induce them to help us in the various problems that we may have together with the international monetary organisations. A clear plan on linked aid would help confidence in sterling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian also has his problems, so I shall end on this point. West Lothian constituency Labour Party, myself and many of the organisations in West Lothian support the Government's policy. We have to be quite clear on that. In many of the unpopular things that have been done the Government have the wholehearted support of political organisations of West Lothian. But one thing that we cannot have is massive unemployment, and as long as I am their representative I shall be putting on constant and persistent pressure, awkward though it may be, in order to fight the battle against the evil of increasing unemployment.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie: I do not have the opportunity to develop on such a constructive theme as my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I only have time to state, more or less, in probably a very destructive way, the problems that affect my constituency. But whilst my hon. Friend was talking about plans, and so on, particularly concerning overseas matters, I recollect that in 1964—I do not say this in any conceit or arrogance—I submitted a plan to the proposed new Ministry of Overseas Development. I understand that it was fairly favourably received.
It appears to me that this is perhaps a time when we should seek to examine it because no doubt we could do something. It could go some part of the way to alleviate the problem that we have as

a consequence of the redundancies at B.M.C., at Bathgate. My main interest in this debate is that in my constituency I have about 100 people who will be redundant. Also, about 150 of my constituents are on short time. I have already interviewed some of them, and it was significant to me, as a miner before I came to the House, that some were former miners. They had left the coalmining industry, probably in the main because of the crisis of confidence created by the Government and the National Coal Board.
There is bitterness amongst some of my constituents who met me, because they made it clear that they had been hunted out of one industry. They thought that they had found refuge in another and now, as a consequence of redundancies, they find themselves unemployed. This is a very human problem, because some of them are in an age range that makes future employment difficult. They made it clear to me that although they had been hunted out of the mining industry they are not prepared to be hunted back into it as a consequence of Government policies.
For those in the late fifties finding employment is a special problem. It is a traumatic experience to meet men who know that their future employment prospects are very slim. It is a traumatic experience to hear a man say that probably this means a substantial period of unemployment for him.
I am talking about the West Calder area, which has suffered as a result of the entire closure of the shale mining industry. It suffered because of the contraction of the mining industry, and the people there have found employment prospects very difficult for some considerable time. I hold "surgeries" in the area and they are the only ones in my big constituency where people ask me, "Can you help me get a job?". This happened before the B.M.C. redundancies. One does not have to be a prophet to predict that when I hold "surgeries" in the future more people will ask if I can help them find employment. No human being, whether he is in his fifties or is younger, should be placed in the humiliating position of having to tot around and look for work.
My final point concerns the West Calder Employment Exchange, which is functionally inadequate for the staff to work in. If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary examines it she cannot be very proud of it. It is not a question of the additional "signings" rebelling at their signing-on conditions; it is the staff who should be rebelling.
Although I believe in full employment and am in favour of the abolition of the employment exchange, we have the problem with us now and we are entitled to see that both the staff and the people who must go to this employment exchange at least have buildings, and so on, that are adequate for the job.
I wanted to take up another point in relation to how the Ministry is calculating on the basis of the 5-day week, but I know that time is getting on. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian for allowing me to take part in the debate. I only hope that our words will not be in vain and there will be action to alleviate some of the problems I have described.

12.10 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I thank my hon. Friends the Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), and also my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), all of whom have raised, either publicly or privately, the problems arising in the Lothian area. I shall try to deal with the points which have been raised in the debate, but I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me if I have to do so necessarily rather briefly as I have only nine minutes in which to reply.
I should say that I am, perhaps, being treated as something of a team because my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has raised questions which relate to—on a quick count—seven different Ministries. I shall do my best to answer them.
I take, first, those which relate to my own Ministry, the Ministry of Labour. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that of the 9 per cent. unemployed, the figure for October, 1,470, or about 4·6 per cent., were people who were temporarily

stopped. In other words, they were B.M.C. workers on short time. The true figure of wholly unemployed is 4·4 per cent. for October. I do not for a moment pretend that that is what it ought to be, but it is not quite as drastic as, perhaps, the 9 per cent. implies. The present position is that 423 of the 718 discharged at Bathgate have been submitted for jobs, 83 have been placed, and 91 have found work on their own account.
I come now to the point my hon. Friend made about advance factories, and here I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend, in a Question on 27th October, said that there were six advance factories which, he said, were empty at present. He may be pleased to know that four of these, which are West Lothian County Council factories, are to be occupied, one by John Collier Ltd., with an estimated additional employment of 180 people, one by Davis & Timmins Ltd., with an estimated additional employment of 18, and two by units of Supermetal Stampings Ltd., with an estimated additional employment of 100. These factories were officially opened on 11th July and are now simply waiting for production to start.
It is right that there is one factory of 20,000 sq. ft., built by West Lothian County Council, which is not so far occupied, but this was only recently finished, and the Board of Trade is now doing its best to bring it to the attention of suitable firms. There are to be two further factories, both of 10,000 sq. ft., in the neighbouring local office area. These will be completed towards the end of the year, and both will allow for expansion of 100 per cent. in addition if this is required.
Now, the question of training. Perhaps I may mention two points here. My hon. Friend referred to the proposals of Mr. John Boyd of the Amalgamated Engineering Union about training at Bathgate. We have looked very carefully at this scheme. The main taker-up of trained workers under this scheme was to be the Cameron Iron Works, at Livingston. The Cameron Iron Works has already been given a sum of money by the Board of Trade under the B.O.T.A.C. scheme which covers not only the cost of setting up the factory but also the cost of its training needs.
The position as we understand it from the firm is that a carefully worked out training programme has been built up on the basis of financial support from the Government which will enable it to take a good many semi-skilled workers into the firm over the next few months. At the moment, the firm does not wish to depart from this expansion programme, with which it is satisfied.
A further difficulty about these suggestions is that they involve the use of redundancy payments as a means of financing retraining. There would be a legal difficulty, and, I think, a genuine difficulty in justice, in depriving B.M.C. workers of the redundancy payments which they would otherwise get, which would be the case if they were simply passed on to the Cameron Iron Works payroll without any intervening point of redundancy at all. They have a right to a redundancy payment, and under Mr. Boyd's scheme this redundancy payment would be paid to Cameron's. In consequence, B.M.C. workers in Bathgate would be alone in not having entitlement to redundancy payment. This presents a number of problems, including legal difficulties.
I turn now to the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in his speech on Monday, when he referred to the possibility of doing more about the retraining of workers for higher skills. There is no doubt in our mind that the great bulk of retraining needs to be done at the semi-skilled level. We feel that it will best be done in most cases by the new employer in order to adapt training to the production lines and processes of factories requiring workers.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that we were in urgent consultation with the industrial training board on this matter and said that he would make a further announcement as soon as possible. I regret that I am not yet in a position to give further details to my hon. Friend, not because I do not wish to do so, but because certain matters still remain to be finally confirmed. My hon. Friend is, I am sure, aware, but it is worth putting on record, that anybody who is trained in Bathgate for new employment can, because it is a development area, already attract the existing form of financial

grants from the Government and, in addition, free instruction under the direct assistance scheme.
I would like next to deal with some of the points raised by my two hon. Friends, apart from those on which I have touched. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian suggests that there should be a task force within the Government to deal with the various problems arising from redeployment. It may well be that this idea contains a good deal of force, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is not one on which I could give a carefully conclusive answer at present.
My hon. Friend referred also to the position about credit. I remind him that it is the case that the Scottish banks pay 1 per cent. on deposit funds whereas English banks pay 2 per cent. and that this type of difference between the two is, perhaps, something which could be taken further.
My hon. Friend referred to the Selective Employment Tax. On this, I again remind him that the question of possible regional variation of this tax is one of the matters which are being discussed by the committee now reviewing the tax. My hon. Friend referred, too, to a possible seasonal variation in hire purchase. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, whom my hon. Friend said he was glad to see present tonight, as also am I, has pointed out that one of the difficulties would be that if the seasonal variation was great, people would not buy in the period when hire purchase was high, but would wait, perhaps, a few months until it came down again. It is, however, a suggestion which might be looked into, although in rather modified form. That is, perhaps, the most that it could bear. I will certainly pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Finally, I want to say a word about the broader position. It is fair at this point to quote one or two things which have been said about B.M.C, which is by far the major employer in the Lothians, and which also affects the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, who spoke with much force in this debate.
I remind the House that the West Lothian Courier of 21st October quoted the management director of B.M.C,


Scotland, as saying that too much had been attempted too quickly at B.M.C., Bathgate, for the amount of skilled labour and technicians available. He said that this accounted in large degree for the difficulties experienced at the Bathgate plant and that the only remedy was drastic steps by the company to ensure a viable unit within the near future. He added that the company had been operating at a large loss for over one or two years, and that this could not go on for ever. That was said by Mr. Raymond Smart, in an address to the Rotary Club at Bathgate, a week or so ago. The problems, therefore, are not simple.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian pointed out, what we have seen in Bathgate was a position where, when the oil shale industry was in full capacity use and the seven collieries which are now closed were in operation, unemployment in Bathgate was, on the

whole, slightly less than unemployment in Scotland as a whole. That was the case until 1958. After 1958, with the effective closure of the oil shale industry and the closing of a great many collieries in the area—seven to be precise—unemployment in this area rose to above the Scottish national average, and it has stayed there fairly steadily in most months from 1958 to the present time.
The car industry was persuaded to go to this area of Scotland under the previous Administration in an attempt to try to make good——

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.